Edwards Ascendent - Democratic Underground

McCamy Taylor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-21-07 04:45 PM
Original message

Edwards Ascendent

The corporate media gave it their best shot. For a solid year they wowed us with the Two Man Race . We had the Fresh Prince of Jakarta and Bill's Golden Gal trading quips, smiling for the camera, jockeying for ratings in their respective time slots and giving the media pundits plenty to talk about---to the exclusion of all else. All else being the other Democratic candidates running for president. The debates featured so many contestants that it was easy to overlook the Vice Presidential nominee from 2004 who entered the fray with a high recognizability and popularity. While the mainstream media gave Hillary and Obama the kind of free publicity that aspiring starlets and serial killers only dream about, they wrote about Edwards in only one context---to create the myth that he was a phony. Early 2007 saw John Solomon of the Washington Post sacrifice what was left of the roadkill that is his journalistic career to pen a series of articles in which he wrote about Edwards house, his hair and (Lord help us) his hairdresser . The jilted homosexual crush subtext of the last story reflected badly only on the hairdresser and Mr. Solomon, who allowed the poor guy to beat his breast in public.

Since I am a readerly consumer of the news (see Roland Barthe's S/Z or my own first journal at DU about "The Readerly News") I noticed pretty quickly that the corporate media was creating a fiction that could best be titled "Edwards is a phony" and I figured it probably came from Karl Rove, who had always said that he feared a John Edwards candidacy, southern Democrats having a tendency to win presidential elections in this country. Edwards, with his populist plans, would be particularly repulsive to the huge corporate media conglomerates, so it would be easy to get journalists to take part in weaving the "Edwards is a phony" story.

Here is what I posted at Daily Kos in February. "From the Corporate Media that Brought You Gore is a Liar: Edwards is a Phony" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/1319/06023/495/299538

Solomon started it, and the press has run with it. Think of how many times name brand journalists have attacked Edwards for "character" issues. At the same time, you could hardly browse through DU, without stumbling over someone posting "That Edwards is such a phony!"

Meanwhile, for a solid year, the press has built up Hillary and Obama as He and She juggernauts, two unstoppable forces on a collision course in the great monster truck show of the Democratic primaries, aka Two Man Race . The myth of the Two Man Race was so deeply ingrained into the psyche of the mainstream media, that I saw Keith Olbermann flash poll numbers from Iowa which showed Obama, Hillary and Edwards in a statistical dead heat, and his guest, E. J. Dionne Jr. (who really ought to have known better) launched into a discussion of Hillary and Obama's chances in that state.

Thank god most people in America do not watch the news or read a newspaper.

Now that Iowa is upon us, the mainstream media is reaching a crisis point that most children experience when they are toddlers. It is not all powerful. No matter how loudly it screams, it can not always get what it wants. Despite all its best (worst) efforts, those irascible Iowa caucus voters are examining the Democratic candidates based upon their words and their stands upon the issues and their histories, and they have decided that they will make up their own minds---as they always do.

The free ride that the press gave Obama, in particular, was not a kindness. It is now late in the political season, and he has not had to face real controversy or challenge. He was declared a front runner for the same reason that actors are declared movie stars---big grosses in the box office. So now, with Edwards coming up from behind thanks to good old fashioned campaigning, Obama must resort to a movie stars tactics in putting him down.

In this NYT article that MSNB (parent co. GE) choose to reprint online:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22319293/page/2/

Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, questioned Mr. Edwards’s ability to continue to run a strong campaign even if he won in Iowa and, should he win the nomination, to prevail in the general election. Mr. Plouffe cited Mr. Edwards’s difficulty competing with the other leading Democrats and Republicans in raising money, and his decision to accept federal matching funds and the spending constraints they impose.

The practical effect would be to limit his campaign’s ability to spend money between the primaries and the convention at the end of the summer, although he could make up that shortfall to some degree by relying on the party and outside groups to take on the Republican nominee for him.

You got that, right? Obama brings in bigger box office, so he is a better candidate. MSNBC agrees. Money makes the world go round, after all. At least, it makes GE's world go round.

Here is how you can tell that Edwards is the real deal. This is what Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week about the recent debate which even the corporate media was forced to admit that Edwards won. And Krugman knows everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1355547600&en=b3ebc8d6afdec377&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”

At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

snip

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator — Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn’t be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because “the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington.”

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

Bingo.

Here is a source that talks about recent changes in Iowa, from Dec. 19:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/a_real_edwards_surge.php

Is John Edwards's surge a media-created phenomenon, a collective reaction formation to the media's desire to see a three-person race, or guilt for building up Barack Obama? Does the media really have that power?

Or are we seeing something more organic?

On Monday, the Edwards campaign recorded more e-mail sign-ups than almost any day in its history.

Over the weekend, the campaign was forced to add four new servers to handle all the web traffic.

Contributions are up online: Thursday and Friday, the two days after the debate, made for one of the highest 2-day totals they've seen in months. (He's been ubiquitous on national television -- morning shows and Sunday shows.)

Media? Guilt? Ha! Have they expressed any shame for "Gore is a liar" ? Have we seen those 2004 Ohio exit polls yet? As for a sudden desire to see a three man race, why? After they have worked so hard to create the fiction of the Two Man Race. And it was going so well. That even had KO drinking the kool aid. I opt for "something more organic" .

Now, the television networks have never liked it when Americans tried to think for themselves, and that goes double for their news departments. The mainstream media is already fighting back. In the NYT story linked by MSNBC, "Edwards is a phony" is introduced:

Political identity
In the process, though, Mr. Edwards is raising questions about his political identity that have followed him throughout this campaign. There is, in this final appeal to Iowa Democrats, no more talk about “two Americas,” and barely a whisper of the optimism that distinguished him from the field in 2004 and which he exhibited as recently as a few weeks ago. He has dropped the attacks that he was aiming just weeks ago at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Washington politicians, and Iraq is an issue that he mentions almost in passing, albeit with fervor.

Instead, he is issuing a defiant pledge to fight big business, to voters in a state that has been buffeted by national and global economic forces and is still reeling from the closing of Maytag plant in Newton in October.

The reason "questions about his political identity... have followed him throughout this campaign" is because people like the writers at MSNBC have been posing them. But you are not supposed to notice this, so you didn't hear it from me.

OK, if The Two Man Race and Edwards is a Phony are not enough to derail the John Edwards 2008 campaign, what is? Here are a few possible stories that you may be seeing in the days to come.

"Iowa is an oddball state that does not predict anything" This is so not true, but what the hell. The media whores will try anything at this point. Sliming one of the fifty states will seem like a worthy sacrifice for the greater cause of wealth disparity and corporate profits. Do not expect to hear this one unless Edwards wins, since no one wants to piss off Iowa voters and make them vote for Edwards out of spite.

"And Edwards victory in Iowa is actually a victory for both Hillary and Obama, because it denies either of them the win and keeps the Two Man Race Open." Yes, I know this one sounds too screwy for anyone to use, but I have actually heard this one on TV.

"The caucus method favors Edwards, but he can not win a traditional vote." I have heard this one, too.

Do not expect to hear anyone point out the fact that Huckabee is rising in the polls in large part because he advocates a return to true Christianity which emphasizes taking care of the poor and the unfortunate (Edwards' key issues) or that recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans would rather increase taxes to take better care of the poor than cut taxes if it meant cutting social services to the poor. Americans of all political persuasions, left and right as tired of the "me, me, me" mind set that is left over from Reaganomics and they are ready for an altruistic, kinder, more compassionate government. If the people select the candidates that best reflect them (in a fair vote) it will be Edwards and Huckabee.