I think that this bullshit type of coverage is exactly the reason why blogs are so important. I remember the good ole days when journalism was a respected profession. Today it is difficult to find someone that will just report the frickin facts. They all have their opinions and they lace the facts around them to create their version of reality. It's all about spin and ratings. In short, just lotza pretty bullshit.

John Edwards is actually speaking about something important. There are nearly 40 million Americans that can barely survive day to day and countless more that live payday to payday. Their plight is hidden by bitches like this that call their selves journalists. They are not even close.

Facts don't going to beat belief. That's the central lesson of post modern American thinking. If "I believe it" it's true- no matter what you say.

She had to have done that on purpose, just because she was pissed that Bonior would imply that the reporters didn't care.

I mean, this?  This is vindictive.

Please post an email.

I think Edwards has determined that he is going to speak on this issue whether people want him to or not, and God bless him for it!!

He has my support to the end, and beyond!!

The list gets longer for "journalists" obsessed with hedgefund-haircuts and big big houses.

Anne Kornblut, NYT, then WaPo
Chuck Todd, Political Director NBC NEWS ("He's lost control of his image.")
By John Solomon, WAPo ($400 haircuts don't sit pretty with average Americans)
ROB CHRISTENSEN, News&Observer ("The haircut story won't go away.")
BETH FOUHY, AP (the continued fallout over his $400 haircuts and connection to a New York-based hedge fund.")

Republican talking points: The (popular) Democratic candidate is weak, inexperienced, a mamma's boy, a sissy, a liar, hypocrite, not smart enough, not popular, crazy, elitist, liberal, phony, slick, oppotuntist and a flip-flopper. You can't trust him so you shouldn't vote for him.

haircut=hypocrite
hedge fund investor=hypocrite
rich=hypocrite
handsome=sissy
devoted marriage of equals=mamma's boy
intelligent experienced successful lawyer=slick opportunist
large house=elitist
service to the poor=hypocrite steals from the poor
union man=phony

Get it? They will attack him because of who THEY are, not who John is. It's all about who signs their paychecks. The corporate bosses know who John Edwards is and they want to stop the man who will tax their billions and demand that they pay all workers a living wage.

I was on the same conference call Anne Kornblut was on with the Edwards campaign, and I heard her ask David Bonior her questions about what Edwards is getting out of this politically.

You know, it's funny, but what she wrote doesn't sound a bit like David Bonior's response. It's almost like she made it up. But we all know responsible members of the media wouldn't do that, now would they?

Let's see. Just checking my notes here...Oh yeah. David Bonior said you can't separate issues of substance from this poverty tour, because solving the problem of poverty is what John Edwards is all about. It's what he's always been all about.

Edwards has been involved in 180 separate union organizing events, and his College for Everyone program has increased college participation in the poor North Carolina county where it operates.

Bonior also said the Road to One America tour aims to force the issue of poverty into the debate and that the campaign challenges the press, the other campaigns, and the public to come to grips with this issue.

That was pretty much the substance of his answers to her questions. Wow. I'm amazed how it's totally unlike what she wrote. She seems to have put in some trivial crap that was NOT discussed and left out the substance altogether. How very vapid of her.

I don't think it's really fair to criticize her as though she was using Fox tactics. Her use of the word "now" probably doesn't warrant as much attention as you're giving it.

Let's step back a little and look at the quote:

John Edwards is battling back the "three H's" that have dogged his campaign -- expensive haircuts, a lavish new house and a stint working for a hedge fund.

Can anyone seriously make the case that these haven't "dogged" his campaign this year? Fair or not, these distractions have indeed dominated Edwards' national news coverage for much of the past few months.

What is John Edwards doing on his poverty tour? He's not "taking a break" from the campaign at all--politicians don't often take breaks, and people running for President certainly do not (though it seems to be okay to take a few months a year and chill in Crawford once you actually do get elected). Todd, there is no way you can seriously believe that this is divorced from the campaign--he's not simply trying to call attention to the people living in poverty, he's trying to call attention to his campaign, which focuses on poverty. And that's a good thing. He's playing the media game, trying to get the media to cover his poverty policies rather than his haircuts. It's something he has needed to do for a long time now.

I think it's a great strategy, and I appreciate his leadership on the issue. But I think you're feigning some indignation here by making the poverty tour by denying what the poverty tour really is about. Kornblut never said poverty was a new issue for the Edwards campaign. She said the poverty tour was a new idea to help define his campaign in the eyes of Americans. And she's right. It's not something the campaign has done, and it's a good idea. It's an obvious attempt to draw parallels to Robert Kennedy in order to bolster his standing as a poverty crusader. It's something he should have done at the very start of the campaign, or at least as soon as the haircut/hedge fund stories started doing damage.

and minimize the message Edwards is determined to put out there, which is a tactic by MCM that is becoming more tiresome by the day.  

Kornblut obviously has it backwards.  The "three H's" are MCM's attempt to distract voters from Edwards' message on poverty - the one they hope no one heeds.

I don't know how most of these "journalists" manage to keep their self-respect.

Edwards is not a phony when it comes to poverty.  He seems to genuinely care about poverty in America.    

Still, he is of course in campaign mode, he has not suspended his actual campaign to work on a specific issue, but he is trying to gain traction with the particular constituency that should be the most receptive to his focus, as his support amongst the poor lags well behind his overall national numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001907. html?hpid=sec-politics

Despite Focus on Poverty, Edwards Trails Among the Poor

As Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards ramps up his anti-poverty initiative this weekend, he will be confronting a deep popularity deficit among his party's poorest voters.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, the former senator from North Carolina was trounced by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents with household incomes below $20,000. Clinton had the support of 55 percent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) drew 20 percent and Edwards 10 percent.
.....
Despite Edwards's devotion to discussing poverty issues, 40 percent of independents from households earning less than $20,000 said there is no chance that they would back him in November 2008 if he were the Democratic nominee. Among these low-income independents, Obama had the lowest "reject rate": 22 percent said they definitely would not vote for him if he were the nominee.

Edwards also encounters trouble among those independents who said that they and their families are falling behind financially. In this group, 9 percent said they would definitely support him as the nominee. Obama and Clinton had nearly twice that level of certain support.

---------------------------------------- --------------

Edwards' worst polling performance of all demographic groups comes from the one group he focuses on the strongest, low income voters.   This poverty tour is partly meant to change perceptions amongst that constituency, of course.