??? (4.00 / 2)

Edwards is "pristine"? He has been savaged by the media for most of the year. Do you think Iowa Democrats never heard about his house and his haircut?

There was always a sizable "anybody but Hillary" contingent among activist Democrats. Among the people I know who volunteered for Dean, Kerry, Edwards or Kucinich last cycle, I can only think of a handful who even considered Hillary.

I agree that in general Obama has received more favorable media coverage and is well-liked among Iowa Democrats. His problem is that many Democrats who like him think he needs more seasoning and should run again in eight or 12 years.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:36:20 AM UTC

ignored (4.00 / 1)

The haircut and house stories were not helpful, but they have not been intense as of late.  Mostly Edwards has been ignored by the press, which I believe was the complaint from, among others, Elizabeth Edwards. 

A cursory search on Google News shows Obama with 25K news stories, Clinton with 22K, and Edwards with 15K.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:02:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What the above poster said (4.00 / 3)

Truly bizzare analysis. When Edwards was not busy being attacked by you as racist etc (which was truly over the top to me as a black guy who supports him), or by the media being called phony or fake on poverty issue (remember those ration of articles)(which you in your last diary called victim politics, but apparently using gender is not), or completely ignored (indeed some polls don't even include his name) or when they did bring him up it was about how he had lost already (remember your own postings on that?) etc, and now we are told that in actuality all along the numbers are explained because its Clinton after only 2 weeks of any real heat who the press was after. Wow, just wow.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:00:24 AM UTC

And by the way, your post contradicts (4.00 / 1)

what Bowers has been writing on clinton as late as a few weeks ago when he claimed among other things that she was being allowed to blur the lines (I remember his writing about her differing positions in NH trying to run as a general candidate). I can try to google it, but what would be the point.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:02:28 AM UTC

Edwards would be in much stronger position without media attacks (4.00 / 2)

The media attacks on Edwards about his haircut, being a pretty boy, have hurt him enormously with many Democrats. I hear it when I talk to liberal friends who don't follow politics closely. They're not aware of his positions. They buy into the image of him being just concerned about his looks and not serious.

There have been unfair negative attacks on Clinton. Chris Matthews is the worst, he seems to be a hater of powerful women. But the attacks by Edwards and Obama are not unfair. They are pointing out truths about Hillary. She made an awful vote on Kyl-Lieberman, she is looking to control her message rather than be a truth-teller. Her inside group like Mark Penn come from corporate power and I think she will be quite beholden to corporate power, as Bill was.

Once we have a candidate the Republicans will go after them ruthlessly and many powers in the corporate media will follow that lead. We have already had two candidates who went for controlled message rather than truth-telling and fighting, Gore and Kerry. Clinton would be a third. I think she would be the worst candidate of the three, and the worst president of the three. I would still actively support her if she were nominated because I think she would do some good things, but I only half-trust her on foreign policy. Obviously she would be far better than any of the lunatic Republican crowd.

John Edwards is I believe the strongest fighter among the candidates and I hope that the Democratic primary voters will be able to see that as they learn more about him, and not just the negative image of him that the media has portrayed.

---

by: BerkeleyMike @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:23:35 AM UTC

I think the danger is from the media (4.00 / 1)

Much less so than the other candidiates. Though I think the problem with Edward's attacks on her is that they aid and abet the media storyline, rather than being about policy issues.

Chris Matthews is pathological in his  misogyny, his dislike of powerful women and her in particular.  He refers to her voice as "cats' claws on a blackboard" 

In Philadelphia, Russert and Williams pummeled her.  The archive question was a lie.  And then afterward, MSNBC host Matthews pounced all over her with one sexist statement after another.  And the other reporters piled on and they made sure that the women who were on also beat her up. If a guest was equivocal in doing this (like Ezra Klein) they didn't appear again, thought Anne Kornblut is on frequently(You wonder what would have happened if Olbermann had hosted the post debate show as he had done at another time)

Today Joe Klein was on, having been in Iowa recently  and, believe it or not, he mostly disputed the Matthews/Russert line on her campaign faltering or that she's rigid.  Matthews usually fawns over his big media guests, he didn't gush over Klein...he didn't like what Klein was saying. Matthews had been so thrilled to find a something to hang his hatred on and Klein was ruining that storyline.

And I know some are thrilled that Hillary seems to be hurting....but we should all take heed that what the media did to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, now Hillary in Nov 07, they could and they will turn around to do to whomever the Democratic nominee will be in 2008. 

Don't gloat....And don't let the media do this to her, because it validates doing it to Obama or Edwards or Richardson .... and then we lose in 2008.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:04:34 AM UTC

John Edwards hasn't "attacked" anyone (4.00 / 1)

The media just frames everything as an "attack."

If you even mention Clinton's name, it's an "attack."

Detecting the Message Inside the Message

---

by: framecop @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:49:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Equivocation? (4.00 / 1)

I think there's a big problem with the "they're doing it to her now, and the others will be next" storyline.  Yes, debcoop, the MSNBC scumbags clearly hate her, and have been and will continue to be unfair to her, probably, as you say, from motives of misogyny. But the other candidates ARE attacking her on the issues.  The idea that she's inauthentic is not a personal attack.  She can kill it at any time by being forthright, instead of equivocating. She could fire her corporate campaign advisers.  She could stop voting for things she supposedly opposes.  She could stop acting like money is the most important thing in the campaign.

Are the other two really vulnerable to these same attacks?  Is there any doubt where Edwards stands on the issues?  Can he be accused of equivocating?  No.  Does Obama consort with the enemy?  Well, maybe the ideological enemy, in the sense that he does not want to kick their butts so much as he wants to reason with them.

We know there are going to be unfair attacks from the Repigs.  It's what they do.  Oversimplify.  Confuse the issues. Bluster and fume.  But I don't agree that the criticisms made of Senator Clinton thus far by Obama and Edwards are those same kinds of attacks, although the garbage shoveled by Tweety, Timmah, and BriWi clearly are.

---

by: Querent @ Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:43:54 AM UTC

Until these debates start getting put on network (4.00 / 1)

television instead of cable, not many people are going to watch them so they aren't going to change much about the race.

The only thing that changes the race, is how the media decides to keep harping on and on about what they "say" happened at the debates.

Most people aren't going to watch a debate on cable.

Detecting the Message Inside the Message

---

by: framecop @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:48:52 AM UTC