From the Media that brought you "Gore is a Liar", the Swiftboating of John Edwards

[McCamy Taylor]

Presidential campaigns sure start early and they cost a lot. Some candidates are willing to sell anything, even their souls. John McCain bartered his early. I guess he has been taking advice from Karl Rove. The people backing his presidential aspiration's have certainly taken a page from Rove's 2000 media strategy.

I posted what follows earlier this evening at the DailyKos, when it became apparent to me that I was witnessing the beginning of "Gore is a Liar, Part II", the media distortions about John Edwards.

From the Corporate Media that Brought You "Gore is a Liar": "Edwards is a Phoney"

It is too early to know how it will be phrased. Will George Stephanopolous ask "What about John Edwards' Character Issue?"? Or will Wolf Blizter refer to the "popular perception that Senator Edwards is a slick trial lawyer"? Maybe CBS will do a series about Edwards' changing hairstyles to create the appearance that he is just a pretty face. That might buy CBS's parent company Viacom some grace from the FCC. Viacom has to do lots of favors for the Bush administration, since they have been out of compliance with federal media ownership rules since BEFORE Bush took office.

Back in 2000, the corporate media participated in a nasty little game. It was called "Gore is a liar." There is a nice story at the Rolling Stone called "The Press v. Al Gore"




The rest is at:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/1319/06023


Or, you can just go back to arguing about whether or not Edwards really cares about what the people who support him think about him. It is what the right wing media wants you to do.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Well Edwards has been getting a bumpy ride lately....

but so has Obama and Hillary.....

Remember OBama/Osama?

Remember Hillary "bad men" joke?

What would make you think that John Edwards is immune to this sort of thing?

The problem is not HOW they attack you...the point is how will John Edwards respond?

cause the Right Wing will always be on the attack....in fact, they are relentless....

The question is how will John Edwards deal with it all?

As President, one deals with situations not always of one's choosing.

But at the end of the day...blaming McCain or the media isn't gonna help you (ask Clark supporters about the media). Cause that's what elections are all about.

Edwards knows that. He's not above it. He used tactics against his opposition.

Like you yourself said, It happens to all of them....all of them....not just John Edwards.

He's not a little boy who needs protecting.

John Edwards is a grown up man running for the Presidency of this country,
the most powerful country on this earth.

[aquart]

2. Every viable, attractive candidate is going to be smeared.

Fortunately, we have so many of them that they're going to have to work really hard.

And if all our fabulous frontrunners get shot down, it will take a minute for another bunch of great candidates to appear. We have an embarrassment of riches.

The Republicans, not so much.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. I like your attitude. Make McCain sweat wondering who is in the next foxhole.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Well, if its Wes Clark, McCain's got deep shit in his foxhole....LOL!

But seriously.......Edwards hasn't seen nothing yet.

in 2004, he came out of Iowa....and never looked back.
The media was charitable to him then...and also when they were pushing Edwards for VP, and then he was chosen, and then he disappeared.

NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage
WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.


This is CMPA’s second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm



This was the reporting right after mini Tuesday. At that point, Clark had actually beaten Edwards in 5 of 9 races......and yet this was the media spin (including the more liberal media):

"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.

February 4, 2004 | After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.

John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in. But Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, took the bellwether state of Missouri by a commanding margin over Edwards. In addition, he won in Delaware, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, placed a strong second in South Carolina and was running strong in Oklahoma.
snip
Edwards staffers tried to make the best of their one victory, casting the race from here on out as a two-man contest.

But this is not 2004. This is for 2008. So whatever favorable treatment Edwards may have received then, he may not get it this time. :shrug:

[karynnj]

31. The media report is interesting

but the statistics hide why that was the case - at least for Kerry and Dean. Dean's negative coverage stemmed from events like him angrily telling a 70 + yr old heckler to sit down, the tape where he said he didn't like the idea of caucuses, and the nasty back and forth with Gephardt. Kerry, who the media declared dead in December got a big spurt of positive coverage with the Rassman reunion. In fact, Kerry's lack of serious coverage in the fall meant that for many people the first time they really saw Kerry was at that event - and it would have been hard to craft something better, especially with Kerry's modest comment that anyone would have done it after Rassman said Kerry had saved his life. In the wake of that, the Kerry coverage was very positive.

Edwards did have extremely positive coverage, but it was also more personality oriented.

[pnwmom]

5. You're right. But we can help by not swallowing -- hook, line, and sinker --

every attempt of the Republicans to divide us.

For example, unless we Democrats make a big issue of these bloggers getting fired, this whole thing will be a non-story by tomorrow. Edwards realized that he had a couple of new hires with anti-Catholic baggage and so he fired them. Big deal, end of story.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Different motives. With Obama & Hillary the goal is to scare the GOP base.

The MSM has been proclaiming Obama a major candidate in order to scare the racist portion of its own base that is frightened of the Democratic Party that it believes gives preferential treatment to minorities. When the MSM calls Obama "Osama", Obama does not lose any support among Democrats. Instead, it terrifies the GOP base even more. "Oh my god!" they think. "The Democrats are gonna run a Black Muslim!"

Same for Hillary. The GOP knows that Hillary is despised by a bog portion of the Republican base, which happens to be made up of men who can not stand her for being a ballsy woman. So, when they make a big deal about her making a joke at her husband's expense, it does not cost her any votes among her own base, Instead, the move is designed to create panic in the GOP base.

Fear in the GOP base gets people to donate money and time to candidates like McCain.

The things I describe which have been done to Edwards are designed to drive a wedge between him and his base. I have not seen the MSM do anything similar that would drive a wedge between Obama or Hillary and their Democratic base. If you have, please comment. The MSM treats Obama like the second coming of Christ and Hillary like some kind of unstoppable Juggernaut.

[FrenchieCat]

13. The motive is always the same......tis the timing that's a variable...

Some get knocked out right at the gate, and others get it in due time.

There are many who won't vote for Obama simply because he's Black...even in the Democratic party.

As a Black person, I know that racism isn't limited to the Republican party.

Some of the Democrats will Fret....and think to themselves, "well Obama's never gonna win, cause he's Black...so I think I'll vote for that other guy".....

So don't think that what you are saying is so. Same for Hillary. There is enough sexism to go round, and it isn't limited to one party. Believe me.

The thing is that Edwards never got targeted much....not even in 2003, 2004, etc...

In particular here at DU. Cause he went from a nearly non-entity in January, to coming out a surprise winner out of Iowa. After that, it took all of 2-3 weeks for the race to be over....and Kerry was leading the entire time. I wasn't even at DU for a the time...cause that was when we were working phone banks and such.

During the period right after the Primaries...it was all positive reporting on John Edwards, since all of the media were singing him praises as the possible VP. Personally, I had never seen such a push from our media to get a guy selected as Vice Presidential Candidate. They worked hard at it.

Then of course during the '04 general election, only the Republicans dogged out our Dem candidates...and for the most part....they left Edwards alone, cause he had dissappeared by then.

So maybe Edwards and Edwards supporters aren't used to it; but this is gonna be a long primary. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Leilani]

18. As to trying to turn the base against a candidate

what about what was done to Hillary?

The rightwing smeared Obama with the Muslim/Madrassa story & then blamed the Clinto team for the rumors.

But Obama didn't buy that & called out FOX.

That's the most blatant example of the tactics you cited, except the targets handled it very well.

[karynnj]

32. I've seen things for both

For Hillary, the word "shrill" comes up in way too many pieces - there are synonyms, but this word is used constantly.

For Obama, the "too green" is used and seems like it is moving towards "arrogance" - though his experience is as good as Edwards. Three years as a Chicago advocate for people, being a University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor, Civil Rights Lawyer, 8 years as state Senator and 2 years as Senator. (Neither Obama or Edwards can be pointed to as a highly experienced anti- Hillary, which is why Gore jumping in would be so major - especially as Kerry is out. Clark has the national security and diplomacy experience that would fit part of this role.)

[karynnj]

30. Everybody needs protecting if charges are untrue or unfair

This is the true lesson of 2004. Kerry's service was exemplary and the records proved that - he needed more Democrats like General Clark and Dean. On many charges, outrage expessed by others and solid back up is more effective. In 2006, Senator Kerry was able to very successfully perform that role when several of the vets running for Congress were attacked on their service.

I don't think that "Edwards is a phony" is swiftboating - it is an attempt to negatively frame Edwards and is comparable to "Kerry (who has a pretty consistent record) is a flip-flopper" and the stupid "Kerry is a metrosexual" - which included claiming he used Botox (using the worst photo from when he was receiving cancer treatment as the before), the "Kerry is wearing orange makeup - at least in photoshop", the simple $75 hair cut, that Drudge recreated as $1000 stylying, cutting and highlighting, and the Cameron fake quotes non interview.

This is likely harder to right than real swiftboating, because many of the elements that are used to create it are so silly - that many people consider the stories no big deal. Note that none of the Kerry stories were a big campaign issue - though, in total, they were used - in aggregate to create a picture that seemed consistent (though none of it was true) of Kerry.

I am not an Edwards fan, but I wonder how much my perception - even as a K/E supporter, reading the Kerry blog, watching CSPAN etc - could have pulled from these themes out there. In picking a candidate, real flaws have to examined, but on these vaguer negatives, how do we determine what is real and as importantly, how do we communicate the truth? Especially, as stating "Edwards is not a phony" leads people to suspect he is.

Notice that you don't see the constant negative stories on the various Republicans. (I just heard a very positive Romney piece on NPR - that mentioned his excellent executive experience as a venture capitalist, running the Olmpics and being Governor of MA. There was a long segment on his faith which they led into with JFK's famous WV speech. If I didn't know better, I would pick up mostly negative vibes.) Yet for every Democrat, an underlying negative image is being cast.

I agree with the OP that this is a problem - the question is how do we change this?

[McCamy Taylor]

40. Do what was done to John Solomon at the WaPo. Attack the journalists.

Ceci Connelly was the only participant in "Gore is a liar" whose career suffered. And all she got was a demotion. This time, every journalist who engages in smear activities against ANY candidate needs to be treated half as bad as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were treated (and all they did was do a story where a source lied about where he got a document).

[pnwmom]

4. Edwards isn't even my leading candidate, but it's obvious to me that

many DUers are way too quick to jump on the criticism bandwagon. And that we're putty in the hands of the Rove operation.

For example, the blogger tempest. Really, what is the big deal? Why are we so up in arms that a couple of low level but higher profile employees got canned when Edwards realized that they hadn't been properly vetted and that they would be an albatross around his political neck?

So what if it WAS the right wing Catholic League that called this to Edwards attention? ALL Catholics, not just right wingers, are offended by broad brush smears against the faith. Anti-Catholic bigotry is just as offensive as bigotry towards Muslims, or Jews, any other form of bigotry.

Edwards's mistake was in hiring these two bloggers in the first place. Should we oppose their firing MERELY because the Catholic League was the group that first made an issue of this? Isn't that awfully self-defeating? If Edwards didn't act, he'd have a lot more Catholics angry with him, including many progressive and populist Catholics who believe in the "preferential option for the poor" and might otherwise have been very attracted by his candidacy.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Might be a regional thing. Californians, I have noticed, are quick to blame

politicians and elected officials if anything that they do not like happens. So, if Dems from California are posting right now they may be thinking "Why isnt Edwards handling this crisis better?" or "Why did he let this mess happen?" or "It must be his fault, because the politician is always wrong." I think that is why poor Grey Davis got blamed for Enron and why the elected SOS was forced out of office to make way for the GOP guy who did so much harm without more people in Calfornia raising a fuss.

Southerners, like me, tend to be suspicious of "the man"--the Corporation, the Big Business. So, when I see something like this, my attention gets caught by Michelle Malikan and the carefully orchestrated trap that was set and the blogg-0-drama that was enacted afterwards. It was obviously scripted by someone with a right wing agenda---and that some one is probably (though it doesnt have to be) McCains new Swiftboat team.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Geeze.....

Why don't you just get a broad brush, while you're at it.

Yes, It must be Californian's fault Edwards' got a small issue...
cause we are so quick to judge. :eyes:

Talking about stereotypes and generalizations!

Well if it helps you.....I guess you should think this.

[Clark2008]

23. Tell me about it!

I'm Southern and I think Edwards defends "The Man."

[Porcupine]

11. Gray Davis sold the state to Enron......

and then tried to cover his ass when it was too late.

Again, core party loyalists, environmentalists and utility activists, pinpointed exactly what Enron was doing while they played games with the light switch. Gray Davis played stupid and refused to acknowledge well-documented protests from his base.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. So, Porcupine, are you from California?

[Porcupine]

19. Actually yes......

Enron's bribing in CA was bipartisan but during the engineered blackouts when the rank and file were trying to get some traction from the capitol Davis was drinking Enron's koolaid.

They were turning the power off in March!!. Just so you know, March is one of our lowest power use months of the year. Every bit of the crap that Enron pulled was done with Davis' tacit approval. Then the dumbass signed us into long term contracts for power at higher prices.

Being a Democrat doesn't mean you don't screw up. When Dems. screw up the rank and file call them on it. That's the way it's supposed to be. If you want an echo chamber join the GOP.

[pnwmom]

15. Scripted by them, but we're dumb enough to fall into the trap.

And there we sit, eating our own. We're so good at that.

[Porcupine]

9. This is the forum to demand policy from candidates

in line with longstanding positions of the Democratic Party.

Here are the POLICIES that I want candidates to make clear stands on:

Climate Change/Peak Oil/Energy (all really the same)

Ending the Global War for Oil(see above)

Universal Health Care

Housing/Homelessness

Job Retention/Offshoring

Workers Rights to Unions

Environment

The Democratic Party needs to make a clear stand in favor of these issues and candidates who veer away from these goals are going to get stomped by core party loyalists.

I'm sick of Republican-lite and I won't stand for it.

[The Wizard]

14. When candidates

refuse to succumb to corporate media pressure and right wing feigned outrage and show a spine, then we will select our candidate and we will win.
When Kerry apologized for the media shit storm over a poorly told joke he took himself out of the race.
When our candidates tell the media to be concerned with things that make a difference in real life like Republican treasury looting and corruption, then we can level the playing field. The Repubes have spent years baiting the media with the false frame of librul media, and the media has complied.
Making a media splash from inconsequential crap has to be called for what it is.
Since sex sells, start talking about certain members of the Republican leadership as being light in the loafers and sword swallowing. Make them deny it. Use the Pox (deliberate typo) News model: Some people are saying that candidate X is actively involved with NAMBLA members Y and Z. Make candidate X say he's not involved with Y and Z, leaving the rest of the alphabet open for speculation.
Ku Klux Karl made the rules. We should play by them. Playing fair with scoundrels is a loser. Hammer them like flat head nails.

[pnwmom]

16. Why is it "feigned outrage" to call a spade a spade?

Or a bigot a bigot?

Anti-Catholic bigotry is as unacceptable as any other form. Yes, the Catholic League was the first Catholic group to speak out, but it wouldn't have been the last. Edwards wasn't caving in to right wing pressure -- he quickly assessed the situation and realized that those anti-Catholic bloggers came with baggage that he didn't need to drag around in this campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Can you give us the quotes please? the links of what "they" wrote....

Because it appears at this point that you are smearing the two bloggers, calling them "Bigots" everywhere you post! Unless you provide some back up evidence for this "Bigotry" you claim for them!

Do you really think that Edwards would want those bloggers to be trashed as you are doing?

[JNelson6563]

20. Here is link to NYTimes story

If you don't have an account you can get a sign-on from bugmenot.com

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/us/politics/07edwards.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26pagewantedQ3DprintQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=41cd2db0Q2FQ2APtEQ2ARkzwQ3FkknQ2BQ2AQ2BQ2FQ2F1Q2AQ2FQ2BQ2AQ2F1Q2A3wQ2AQ3EkIanazwQ2AQ2F1tRPQ5DQ3FRw49nQ24I

This story was linked to in a thread here at DU yesterday and I believe that is what started the discussion here.

[pnwmom]

24. I really don't care what Edwards would want, but here's a sample.

They're hard to find now. Some were magically erased from the original website. Others, according to the NYTimes, were too profane to print.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/terrymoran/2007/02/does_john_edwar.html

From ABC news:

A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards' official campaign "blogmaster," Amanda Marcotte. She joined the Edwards campaign last week, and she's already gotten a lot of attention.

At issue are Marcotte's comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net/), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech.

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards' association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder--among other things--whom he might appoint to high office if he's elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:

Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church's position on birth control: "Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology." (Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards "blogmaster" had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it "okay" to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?)

[karynnj]

34. Thanks for posting this - I was going to disagree with you

saying that prior statements that were maybe a bit out of line poster prior to accepting the job with Edwards on her private blog shouldn't keep her from doing a professional job working in a different more constrained environment, but your last paragraph goes beyond those bounds. It actually attacks ALL Christianity, not just Catholcism. (As a Catholic who converted to Judaism, I find this extremely offensive.)

I would have though that the Edwards team would have checked the public posting of a person they were hiring to lead their blogging. I had read symapthetic threads that dealt with this and had agreed with them - until seeing what she wrote.

[The Wizard]

21. Are they

anti Catholic or do they disagree with some part of Catholic doctrine?
try this
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0204/biblesex3.html
We tend to over react to criticism and throw good people under the bus out of some fear of losing votes from those who wouldn't vote for a Democratic candidate if his name was Jesus Christ.
In parts of the Bible Belt being a Republican trumps all other factors and Democrats shouldn't fear losing something they'll never get.

[pnwmom]

25. They're anti-Catholic. They're not some thoughtful disagreement

with Catholic doctrine, they're obscenity-laced insults that wouldn't be excused if they were directed against Islamic or Jewish doctrine.

For a sample, see posts 20 and 24.

[Clark2008]

22. You don't seem to get it.

Gore didn't DO all the things the media accused him of doing: Edwards, thus far, has.

:shrug:

[Mass]

26. Nothing new. Nothing personal to Edwards.

The media attack Democrats. They did it to all major previous candidates and will do it to all future candidates.

[pnwmom]

27. And the better candidates know how to rectify their mistakes and cut

their losses.

This one was a goof-up. These women should have been more thoroughly vetted.

[Mass]

28. What Marcotte said was pretty much over the board, I agree,, though not necessarily anti-catholic.

I have absolutely no problem with what the other blogger said, though.

It is obviously Edwards's decision to make, but this confirms me in not agreeing with Edwards on these issues.

May be it take a bigot (Donohue) to recognize another bigot, but it is sad that the media consider him as somebody that you should take cues from. Donohue has an history of bigotry that is far larger than these two women. (read Mediamatters.org for some examples).

[pnwmom]

29. I can't stand Donohue, but Edwards didn't hire him.

He hired the bloggers.

Yeah, I kind of agree with McEwan about Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" but that is NOT the kind of writing that Edwards should want to associate himself with. It's fine for anonymous posters on DU -- it's not fine for official communicators hired by Edwards. People who have political careers in mind should tone it down.

[beachmom]

33. It's not swiftboating, and you belittle what happened to Kerry and later

Murtha, Murphy, and Sestak when you use the term so loosely. Swiftboating means lying about a candidate's (who is a VETERAN) war record with innuendo but no proof. They talk about the Swiftboating of John Kerry in August 2004, because these people just lied and lied and lied, they'd get caught in a lie, then change their story again and lie some more. When Murtha came out against the war in the fall of '05, the Right tried to swiftboat Murtha. Then in the '06 election, they went after Murphy and Sestak. You could also argue that going after Webb's novel, which described what he had seen when he went to war, and saying he had a sick mind was on the edges of swiftboating, too.

But all the stuff you listed that has happened to Edwards occurred before swiftboating, and since Edwards is not a veteran he can't be swiftboated.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. McCain has hired the Swiftboat Ad people, that is why I call this a Swiftboat Attack.

Here is the story. McCain has hired all the dirtiest of the dirty, presumably so that they will not dish any dirt out on him this time. If you see a nasty attack, presume it comes from McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/us/politics/04mccain.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1170651600&en=9735c92d5a1afa11&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=login

[Skwmom]

35. I wouldn't worry.

They aren't going to go after Edwards until after the general election. Why in the heck would they want to keep Edwards from being the nominee (or anywhere on the ticket for that matter)?

So has the corporate media started to hammer Edwards on his comments on Iran?

[shery]

37. what was Edwars comments on IRAN ?

Please where can I find his comments about iran ? which thread ? or which news ?

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Here is a recent interview.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/12834/09259

[FrenchieCat]

44. Here's the text of Edwards' speech that kind of ignited a small uproar on the part

of democratic bloggers...

Text of Edwards speech as it was spoken at a Neocon conference
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Here's how the media reported on it:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

And he did after-the-fact soften his position by toning down his rethorics:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12434
Also see MTP interview from this weekend (you can probably google it).

However, some took issue with his shift, stating that Edwards was more or less playing politics with this issue...and attempting to maneuver for maximum effect:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://local-organizing.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/02/04/john-edwards-plays-both-sides-on-iran/

while others felt that Edwards words were taken out of context in the more hawkish venue....
and that he never said "war" in terms of Iran, so the rethorics don't add up to anything....
while yet others agree that we should be very though on Iran

further, some just don't really care one way or the others....as they either like Edwards or
they don't......in reference to this issue...as well as other issues.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Thank you for making my case. Frenchie.. So much "spontaneous"

discussion and argument and verbal warfare over what Edwards meant by some ambiguous words at a conference. Most journalists would ask the candidate what his stance on a certain issue was at the next interview. The nation waited for Hillary to get back from Iraq and gave her a full press conference to explain her views clealry.

But in Edwards case we have people who rushed to spread conjecture all over the internet. Forget his views. No one involved in that three day Edwards bashing fest cared what his real policy is. What was important was the scandal.

People who relied upon their own judgment knew that Edwards was unlikely to advocate the bombing Iran to stop it from getting nukes. That is not his style. However, they were loudly denounced by those who were convinced that they could read Edwards mind from the implications of a few words. Or by people who PRETENDED that they were convinced that they could read Edwards mind.

[FrenchieCat]

47. You can sweep foreign policy actions and words under the rug....

bundle it up and call it a day if you want to.

You label the whole various occurrences as a "rush" to attack Edwards if it explains things for you.

But it is very possible that maybe Edwards wouldn't have "adjusted" his stance, had there not been the fact that a big issue was made of his words....I suppose, since you are supposing too.

You don't understand (but you will) that everyone is not you. Everyone is not so in awe of John Edwards that they will wait and just say nothing and believe that what he says couldn't be and be patient with an explanation.

Just like we don't know if there was no uproar over the blogger issue, whether Edwards would have kept them on.

What we do know is that Edwards campaign do seem to value the netroots enough to listen to them, and that is good...to a point of course. Because at the end of the day, no matter what, this country needs a leader, and no someone who adjusts to please....cause at some point it becomes impossible to please everyone.

but we have an entire year to go.

It will all come out in the wash, sort of speak.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Edwards has a southern accent. And remember Nixon and Musky.

Team McCain's reasons for doing things do not have to be the brightest in the world. The people who have been running the GOP are a bunch of dim bulbs. If they were smart they would not have tried to retain control of Congress last fall when they did not have a lock down on the press (you can not terra-fy people if you do not control the press). The GOP worries that a heavy southern accent plays well among some independent and republican voters in the midwest and a few other areas. Therefore,they would rather NOT have Edwards be the nominee. They have not even looked at his platform.

I think they are planning to have Hillary/Obama be the party's nominees. Kind of like Nixon choosing McGovern. There is a chance that the country might say "A woman and a Black man! We hate the Republican but that is a lot of change! We have to think about this."

The country will probably elect Hillary/Obama, but Team McCain thinks they have a better chance that way.

[Skwmom]

36. Trying to compare Edwards situation to what happened to Gore is

ridiculous spin.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. "Gore is a liar" started somewhere. Read the Rolling Stone piece.

I am going to keep track of what the mainstream media does with this story. I will repost on it in the near future and provide a link to this thread so that we can see whose predictions panned out. I hope that you guys are right and that there is no further action on "Edwards is a phoney." However, I am an old pro when it comes to spotting propaganda of the type that Karl Rove and his cronies dish out, and I will bet a nickel that I am correct.

The only thing that can keep the press from repeating "Gore is a liar" this presidential campaign is if the public is vigilant and if we hound them everytime they step out of line, the way that John Solomon was hounded at the WaPo.

[blm]

41. It started with impeachment. The DestroyDems industry GREW and floyrished with Clinton in office

and THAT is where it should have been stopped but Clinton let alot of it slide by not hammering them back.

The RW noise machine grew stronger against Gore and was at full power after 9-11 and targeting even people like Dixie Chicks and Dan Rather, and then Kerry.

The RW noise machine should have been exposed and countered by a Dem party machine. But, it never was. It took Katrina to blow back the category 4 spinning of the GOP and its media machine.

[zulchzulu]

46. Welcome to "So You Wanna Run For President, You Democrat?"

Everybody will get spanked by the MSM. They're just doing their job for their masters.

[McCamy Taylor]

48. Hugh Hewitt, point man for "Edwards is a phony"

This guy's site is the first one you find when you google "Edwards" "phony" "2007". Read the three entries I have linked below. There is a theme. The theme is spelled out quite clearly. This guy is telling the story, "Edwards is a phony".

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/8a740f4f-d604-48fa-a537-102a86c7a2e7

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/f517b0a2-d6c2-45a7-9395-ccea8bd10f69

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/8c62c66c-57bc-4dc7-93c3-22c2724934df

Some excerpts:

"Edwards Flip-Flops on Firing of Bloggers"

"Which reminds me, my hair is looking outstanding today."

"It reveals him to be a phony even more effectively than that video of him combing his hair for over a minute did."

[McCamy Taylor]

49. No boat involved, but the MSM was "Swift" to accuse Edwards of hating Catholics.

CNN spreads the message that Edwards hates Catholics

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/edwards.bloggers.ap/index.html

MSNBC spreads the message that Edwards hates Catholics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17023960/

FOX News spreads the message that Edwards hates Catholics

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb06/0,4670,EdwardsBloggers2008,00.html

CBS spreads the message that Edwards hates Catholics

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/ap/politics/mainD8N4KDJ82.shtml

ABC spreads the message that Edwards hates Catholics

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2854587

MediaMatters notices that people like those above are pointing fingers at Edwards but not at McCain (hurray for MediaMatters!)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070016

If only the nation's TV news networks would give a Democratic candidate this kind of coverage for some kind of policy statement.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. Now, if you are mad at Donohue and the MSM, here is something to do about it.

Here is a link to BlogPac where you can join a petition to send messages to ABC,NBC, CNN and the rest telling them how outraged you are that they blindly reported the right wing's version of the story (Edward's hires bloggers whop hate Catholics) without doing any fact checking on the story or source.

http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Blogpac/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1855

Good reasons for speaking out to the MSM:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117096650807114758

"Gore is a liar" should never happen in this country again. It was that media atrocity that allowed Bush to steal the 2000 election.