NPR too (0.00 / 0)

You can count NPR in that crowd,  Ken Rudin is actually a long-time, Hotline-like, DC insider political junkie, it's really the insiders in DC, on both sides of the aisle, that detest Edwards. Rudin just lifted it straight from his last column word for word:

But while he made no impact on the national scene, he still has the potential to be a factor in next year's Senate race, should incumbent Republican John Warner retire, as some have speculated. Warner, who is 80 years old and in his fifth term, raised just $500 in the first quarter of the year - not much more, as we wrote in the April 19 column, than the cost of a John Edwards haircut.
http://www.npr.org/t...

---

by: Jerome Armstrong @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:24:06 PM UTC

And not just NPR... (0.00 / 0)

Just as there is a press rule about Howard Dean that requires a mention of the "scream," there is now a similar rule about Edwards and the hair cut.

Regardless of the editorial slant of the outlet, I notice the haircut mentioned in just about every article or report.

As Somerby reminds us frequently, it was not the RNC spin machine that sank Gore's run. It was the so-called "liberal" press.

What's the Point?

---

by: Vermonter @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 13:58:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oy (0.00 / 0)

People are lazy. They can't think of anything else to say about the campaign that three of four standard lines. Part of that is the fault of candidates who are not campaigning on ideas or candidate differences. So far, we haven't had much of that, although I think Edwards has been better than most.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:56:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's interesting to note (0.00 / 0)

that Clinton and Obama have been sharpening their message regarding the economy and populism of late:
http://www.nytimes.c...

On the one hand, the obvious cynical view is that the stronger candidates are cherry-picking Edwards' central focus for their own campaigns to make themselves even more dominant. But it's also a sign of how much Edwards' message is resonating that they are taking this step.

Even if he himself loses, he's made an impact by pushing these issues out front and making Obama and Clinton stake stronger positions. That's a win in my book.

---

by: MBoz @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 15:08:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think AP is as much to blame as anyone. (4.00 / 1)

Take a look at this feed.

Every story is about the poverty tour, about people in poverty, about fighting for a better New Orleans.

Do you know what is missing?  About five or ten stories about Kucinich Blasting Edwards.  Know what they have in common?  They were all copies of the same AP story.

AP has a long history of printing only negatives about John Edwards.  Nedra Pickler is especially awful. Every local paper is focusing on the issues, AP is focusing on fluff.

Fluff vs. Famine.  AP chooses fluff.

---

by: Robert P. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 16:56:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For example... (0.00 / 0)

the newest AP headline.

Edwards, Obama focus on poverty

Right, because they both have equal focuses on poverty.

---

by: Robert P. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 17:29:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Moderates Iraq Plan (0.00 / 0)

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Edwards is behind in the Polls in NH but it does. I had thought they would be more informed on the War Policys of Obama and Clinton.

  Here are some quotes from a moderate/centrist speech this weekend, you tell me if this is how you want to see this all play out.

1.  "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."

2)would be "a great worry for our country" if Iraq "becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is." So he/she would "order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."

3)U.S. troops would also train and equip Iraqi forces "to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working."

4)And he/she might deploy other forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, he/she said, "to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there."

This is not how I want to see things done. 5 to 10 yrs is still the number being thrown about as if the next election is a done deal , no matter who wins. Do you wonder why they are so confident ? Think about it moment.

The above plan for Iraq is almost a fact of life if a Republican wins. The real problem is the above quotes come from a Democrat Candidate for Pres., Hillary Clinton. So the Neocons and the Centrists, Bush and Cheney win. They will be allowed the their Splurge, that time Bush is always whining for.

 

In other words, Clinton ascribed to what might be called the consensus, Baker-Hamilton view: Pull out of the most intense combat but remain militarily engaged by going after terrorists, training and advising Iraqi troops, and safeguarding at least some regions or borders. It's the position set forth in the proposal of Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed and in the compromise proposal of Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar. Last week President Bush said it's "a position I'd like to see us in."

Let me remind you of the position Sen. Levin has taken just recently. Sen. Combover said this in June. " Democrats, and I hope a growing number of Republicans, will keep fighting for this approach until either the president signs it or we override his veto. Until that day, we will continue to fund the troops,"
This quote is from Levins OpEd titled "Lincoln's Example for Iraq".

How do you like that title for a OpEd on capitulation. Does that sound like Levin is willing to do what it takes to exert pressure on Bush ? The Centrists are trying to walk a tightrope whose day has come and gone. This plan even back when it came out was iffy at best, in the time since it's become like that story we learn about quests. Guests are like fish, they are good for a couple days then they begin to rot and stink up the place.

Most of the country and hopefully that includes us Progressives, have moved past this point. We must pick our Candidate based on how they get out of Iraq, and how they plan on dealing with Bush afterwards.

 

There's another problem, too: Democratic primary voters do not want to hear of adjustments, redeployments, reductions. They want all troops out, now. That is why Clinton will devote one paragraph to the military defense "of our very real strategic national interests in this region" and more than 10 pages to troop withdrawal.

http://www.washingto...

I refuse to accept that we have to leave our troops there another 10 yrs, and let it turn into just another one of our Bases Overseas. Maliki showed us the way to the door this weekend. He thinks he can go it alone. His own Opposition party and Sadr want us out.

Now is not the time to ease up and just accept the fantasy of something will change come Sept., it wont change at all. Think about it, just how do you feel about hearing of our Troops dying another 5 to 10 yrs ?

  One can only hope the NH Primary Voters will come to their senses and give Edwards the votes he deserves.

Pledge To Ask "The Question"

---

by: OneCrankyDem @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:56:45 PM UTC

IIRC, (0.00 / 0)

Mo Do was 1 of the earliest people on that story, too. It's right up her alley.

---

by: sb @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 13:10:39 PM UTC

the question is... (4.00 / 3)

... why would right-wing news sources have an impact on Democratic primary voters?  Surely, the fact that Edwards has only been in NH for one day in the past month to generate free media, while Richardson has been there five days, has something to do with it as well.

It could also be, as Garance Franke-Ruta wrote for the Prospect yesterday, that Edwards' transformative policies just aren't as important as the transformative effect of having a female or black President:

Edwards' problem is that poverty in today's America, as in New Orleans, has not merely been the result of too low a minimum wage or other defects of bureaucratic liberalism. It is also a consequence of a lack of social and political power among certain groups of people, and the distortion effects that this historic lack of social capital or hope has on whole communities. Government programs can help reduce the negative consequences of the lack of power, and have a tremendous positive impact on how poor people are able to live.

But offered a choice between the promise of new programs and political candidates who might enhance their social standing and political power, many poor people are choosing the promise of social change. They understand intuitively that social equality and increased political power for the disenfranchised leads inexorably to greater economic equality and opportunities for all. Edwards' promise of anti-poverty government action, in this calculus, holds less appeal than the transformative potential of electing the first African-American or first woman president in the nation's history.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 13:14:42 PM UTC

I think (0.00 / 0)

Garance has a valid point. Access to political power has a more transformative effect than government programs on poor communities. Kwame Nkrumah [Ghana's first president] once said: seek thy political kingdom and the rest shall follow or something to that effect.

---

by: kekuta @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:17:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagreed with Garance's premise (0.00 / 0)

And responded thusly:
http://scholarsandro...

Her point is reasonable, but I think it does black and woman voters an extreme insult to assume that they'll flock to a black or woman candidate simply due to easier self-identification. America's political views are just more complex than that these days, for which I think we should be proud.

Whatever Edwards' flaws are, his work is definitely stirring up debate. Read through the comment thread and you'll see one of the more bitter anti-Edwards commenters I've seen in recent weeks.

---

by: MBoz @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the single visit is the important part (0.00 / 0)

If there's one thing I know about NH voters, it's that they demand attention.  If Obama is spending time there and Edwards isn't, no wonder he's dropping in the polls.  It's a small state and voters expect to have met all the candidates personally by the primary.  Edwards seems to have recognized that with Iowa, but he'll need to find some way to balance his time and do the same in NH if he wants a shot at a decent performance there.  NH voters are savvy, smart, and spoiled.

I honestly believe that this observation by Adam is probably the number one reason why Edwards is taking a nosedive there, more than whether his policies are resonating or whether voters care more about having the first black or woman president. 

---

by: KevinH @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:27:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh. (4.00 / 1)

Obama has only been there twice in the past month, so I kinda left that out before, and only wenty events in NH this year (multiple events on same day counted separately).  Compare that with 44 for Richardson and 35 for Edwards, but I believe Obama's spending more money there than they are in building staff and organization.

Total events in the first four states:
Edwards: IA 56, NH 35, SC 17, NV 9
Obama: IA 55, NH 20, SC 11, NV 6
Clinton: IA 35, NH 26, SC 12, NV 6
Richardson: IA 25, NH 44, SC 15, NV 25

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards has the advantage (4.00 / 1)

Of not having any other job. He has visited every early state more than anyone else, except Richardson in Nevada.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:52:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And, arguably... (0.00 / 0)

...being a governor requires less of a geographic commitment than having to be in DC for votes at times scheduled by others.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:56:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's also been in the race a lot longer (0.00 / 0)

than anyone else.  How about doing an average of visits/day in the race.

Of course, Hillary is still "Exploring" I believe.

---

by: Robert P. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 16:58:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only 10% of Democratic Voters in NH Have Made Up Their Minds (0.00 / 0)

I think that most of all voters in NH have not even made up their mind yet.  All voters want to pick a winner.  Do you really think the democrats are going to go with an iffy candidate?  My bet is that in the end most democrats are going to pick the candidate that is the most electable.  Hillary has many negatives. I think that most democrats are waiting for Gore to decide.  Once Gore decides not to run for good we will have a better idea of who is going to get the Gore votes.  It is way too early to stick a fork in anyone, even McCain.

---

by: spanky2007 @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 14:48:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You immeditately (0.00 / 0)

discredit yourself by citing GFR--she's probably the worst "liberal" blogger in America.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 17:32:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's my Latin-English dictionary? (0.00 / 0)

David, how would I say ad hominem in Latin? 

I've had my beefs with GFR -- she did once call me "round-faced" in an article -- but that doesn't discredit everything she ever writes.  C'mon, David -- put that NESCAC education to use and explain why this argument is wrong.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 18:22:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have time (0.00 / 0)

point out all the holes in the piece, so let me discuss just one.

And lemme first say that I don't think the overall point of the piece was a bad one, but her "proof" for it was almost non-existent.

For example, to the argument that low-income voters are low-information voters and thus wouldn't at this point know the differences between the candidates' positions, GFR says:

"Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, and has high levels of name recognition in key states; in Ohio, which he will visit later this week, he has 97 percent name recognition."

Now, perhaps low-income voters are in fact familiar with the candidates' positions, but I know that high name ID in no way proves this, especially when the image of Edwards is more moderate than that of his positions.

This is typical of GFR's fuzzy reasoning. Her posts and articles are pieces of swiss cheese.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 18:55:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

trust (0.00 / 0)

Ultimately we are all just people, and would like to be treated equally the same, as just people. However she does have a point.  There are so many ways in which racism and sexism play out in policy, appropriations, legislation and regulation.  I would trust a person of color to make a good decision on behalf of the urban poor.  I would trust a woman to make a good supreme court choice. I think our personal allegiances effect our ultimate choice, and we have a lot more to choose from this time around.

---

by: aiko @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:17:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2004 (0.00 / 0)

Just the facts -- Edwards has never had a strong base in NH and finished behind Kerry, Dean & Clark in 2004.  If he wins Iowa, he will do great in NH, otherwise it could knock him out of the race in 2008.

---

by: howardpark @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 00:50:03 AM UTC

A Contrarian Opinion (4.00 / 1)

Edwards has clearly spent a lot of time discussing important issues and he is to be commended for it.  However, every campaign hits its bumps which the media exploits, be it fair or not, and the strong ones figure out a way to get passed it.  I can't tell you how many times I wrote off Bill Clinton in 1992 from Jennifer Flowers to the draft and yet he and his team were talented enough to figure out how to perservere and change the subject.

Edwards and his team need to figure out how to get past this issue.  The guy has some interesting policy ideas but it doesn't mean much if you don't win.  The campaign or its supporters complaining about media treatment gets you nowhere.

---

by: jmnyc @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:47:03 AM UTC

It doesn't help to have paid reporters (0.00 / 0)

attacking either.

Edwards may not have been in NH as much as the NH voters want- but it is still early and I don't quite understand why some are trying to sink the boat before it is really launched into the water.

http://mediamatters....

Edwards is making noise about issue that matter, if the New Hampshire voters can't figure that out and support him, then it will be a shame. 

It is a wonder that Edwards has any poll numbers at all with the little if any, and when covered more nonsense than substance by the main stream media.

http://www.eenrblog.com/
Great new Progressive blog!Check it out. Let's get active!

---

by: dk2 @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:19:51 AM UTC

It's many factors (0.00 / 0)

Edwards had over 20% support in NH polls early May. Now he is under 10% - a 50% drop in less than three months. He's collapsing. That's not to say this can't be reversed but I doubt the decline is because NH voters are concerned with the haircut stories. I think it is more fundamental. Edwards' line that the war on terrorism is just a slogan offends many Democrats, and undermines his credibility on foreign affairs.  His focus on poverty isn't working with NH voters.

Plus, Edwards has never been strong in New Hampshire. He finished 4th in 2004 with only 12% of the vote - and that was after all the favorable media attention he received coming out of his second place finish in Iowa.

And it is not just in NH where Edwards is showing weakness. Look at his donors. Only Richardson and Obama saw an increase in second quarter of donations greater than 10% over their first quarter contributions. Edwards saw a 36% drop in contributions.

While obviously Edwards has more cash on hand than Richardson today, Edwards is going to have to burn a substantial amount to try to get his poll numbers back up. If trends continue, Edwards may not have any money advantage over Richardson come the end of the 3rd quarter.

---

by: Stephen Cassidy @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:24:17 AM UTC

I disagree with your portrayal. (0.00 / 0)

Collapsing is much to strong of a description! Maybe in somesone's dreams.

Let's not get in to the donor comparison - since obama counts a bumper sticker sale as a donor!

http://www.eenrblog.com/
Great new Progressive blog!Check it out. Let's get active!

---

by: dk2 @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 15:02:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Definition (0.00 / 0)

What's your definition of collapse in support then?  A 50+% drop in support meets my definition.

---

by: Stephen Cassidy @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 15:47:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

one source- the primaries are still a long way off (0.00 / 0)

do you plan to lamblast any and all candidates as their numbers rise and fall from time to time.

I would call pulling out completely a collapse, I would call all of your campaign advisors running for the hills a collapse. But not some frigging numbers still months away from the first primary.

Please try and contain your rhetoric.

http://www.eenrblog.com/
Great new Progressive blog!Check it out. Let's get active!

---

by: dk2 @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 20:21:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pulling out is pulling out (0.00 / 0)

"Please try and contain your rhetoric."

You're the one getting bent out of shape.  If I said McCain's support in NH has collapsed would you disagree with me?  We can measure this in poll numbers.  In Feb. McCain was close to 30%.  Now he is around 15%.  That about a 50% drop.

Edwards has had a similar percentage decline in his support in  NH, in even less time.

Obviously, it extremely early and most NH voters say they haven't settled on one candidate.  Edwards can turn this around, but don't sugar coat what has occurred. 

---

by: Stephen Cassidy @ Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:05:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]