Newshounds: Cavuto is devoting his time to bringing down John Edwards

[draft_mario_cuomo]

More evidence of the right-wing fear of John Edwards and his message...

Cavuto Slams John Edwards in 9th Bashing Segment of the Month

==Rather positive reports for Republicans but it's another thing on Fox when the subject turns to Democrats -- especially that apparently really, really vile Democrat, John Edwards.

On July 2, Michael Barone was on to talk about, "Campaign Cash: Will Most Money 'Buy' the Top Spot." As happens so frequently on Fox, the discussion turned to the "terror issue," as Cavuto called it that day and the chyron changed to, "Impact of Terror Scares on 2008 Campaigns." Barone concluded with, "...he Republican voters do think we face a serious threat, whereas a lot of Democratic voters agree with John Edwards that this is a bumper -- the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan."

On July 3, Cavuto's guest was former NYC mayor, Ed Koch in a segment captioned, "Why are Dem Candidates so Quiet About Terror Scares?" In it, Koch endorsed Clinton and said John Edwards is, "finished and a fool."

On July 9, Cavuto hosted a roundtable discussion captioned, "Some Democrats Proposing New Taxes on Wall Street." Fox went to a split screen for most of the segment and predominantly showed video of John Edwards, with a short clip of Hillary Clinton thrown in (you know, add that look of being "fair and balanced"). Roundtable participant Jonathan Hoenig said John Edwards, "...Believes the rich should pay more simply because they have more and that's his Marxist bread and butter."==

==So, get the picture? For all intents and purposes Cavuto is ignoring the Republican candidates and devoting his time to bringing down John Edwards.==

Read the rest at http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/30/cavuto_slams_john_edwards_in_9th_bashing_segment_of_the_month.php

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Marxist.

They throw slurs like that around with such mindless facility.

[LittleClarkie]

2. The local Conservative pundit feared him in 2003

Thought he could have won. Saw him as being very JFK.

[BeyondGeography]

3. More proof that Edwards was right to lead the War on Fox

[LostInAnomie]

4. If there's one thing all corporate media can agree on...

... it's that Edwards has to be stopped at all costs.

Makes you wonder why they spend so much time discussing and attacking someone they dismiss as "finished and a fool".

[Supersedeas]

17. true Cavuto is not alone...the Corp/Media Establishment is united in its venom

[Old and In the Way]

5. It's pretty obvious that they want Hillary as the Democratic nominee.

While I don't think that will save them, I do know that they've invested years in demonizing her. They probably think they can influence the outcome by attacking Edwards and Obama now and then concentrate their firepower on Hillary after the nomination.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I don't think they will go after her. Murdoch is her buddy. and the corporate biggies.

[Robson]

6. Cavuto's views

It's safe to say that Cavuto has known fascist neocon views. He fits right in at Fox.

BTW why does Rupert Murdock love Hillary? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

[Triana]

7. 2nd Report i've read today about skeered little Repubes ragging on Edwards

Wow! They must really see him as a threat then. They're going gangbusters on him. He can handle it, that doesn't worry me, but I find it simultaneously disgusting and amusing that the Pubes are so threatened by Edwards. Poor little dopes.

[silverojo]

10. Edwards wants to help the poor

That, right there, is reason enough for the Conservitards to hate and fear him.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. why in the world would he be after Edwards???

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Best chance to win.

Most injurious to corporate kleptocracy.

Has the gall to be rich and care.

Won't suck up or sell out.

Too cute.

Doesn't have personal skeletons in his closet.

Admits his mistakes. (This alone makes proto-male primitives froth at the mouth. Hell, the son-of-a-bitch probably stops and asks for directions when he's lost! No wonder Coulter calls him a f****t.)

Take your pick; they're working themselves up into almost anti-Bill Clinton levels of obsession.

(Quick caveat here: this is assumed to be "of the top contenders".)

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Because they know he can't win.

The RW attacks the candidate they WANT as the nominee to try and trick the democratic base into supporting them.

[countmyvote4real]

11. You’ve hit the nail on the head. RW wants to run against Hillary.

That’s because it’s a win/win for them.

Win 1:
They want to run against one of their most vilified Democratic figures. As someone previously posted, the GOP has a great investment of their hate for the Clintons. Period. Some are so steeped in the Kool-aid that they think that she can be beat because she is Hilary Clinton.

Win 2:
Another Clinton dynasty is really not so bad for rich GOP Corporations. Okay, they had their tax issues, but they got NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act, etc. Hilary is certainly a lot better outcome than the other Democratic options.

In either case, the GOP will wrap it up in “terra” and then tie it off with a morality bow for good measure. They will pin their own corruption on the other party’s candidates.

How better to ensure either of the GOP “win” scenarios than by picking off the most threatening candidates to their agendas? For now it’s Edwards. Once they’ve knocked him off it will be Obama.

I do not want another dynasty POTUS. It’s already corrupt by its nature. If public service is really a personal goal, why can’t a former First Lady (that actually transformed that role) be satisfied by her service as a Senator? And then there is the matter of her record as a Senator.

I’m sure she did her share of bookmarks for New York, but she did not have her country’s back when she voted to give the monkey king war powers to invade Iraq. Unlike Edwards, we have yet to hear any honest regret for that decision. Instead, I think she had her own back in mind while all along denying that she would run for POTUS.

So, that leads me to my personal lose/lose take on running HRC as the Democratic candidate in the general election.

Lose 1:
Maybe the GOP is right in thinking that Amerika will never elect a non-white male to POTUS. That leaves some pretty miserable choices from the GOP side to abuse the as yet unchecked powers claimed by the current administration. I don’t believe that will happen unless the DOJ is NOT finally exposed for their political corruption of our Constitution and laws.

Lose 2:
We won. We got a woman into the WH. Really? We could get an equally smart woman in the WH with the impeachment of this entire administration before 2009. And this woman (Pelosi) is far more progressive than the DLC candidate that wants to… I don’t know… what? Why does HRC desperately need a do-over?

Either way, we the people lose with Hilary Clinton. On the other hand, Rupert Murdach seems to like her. How good is that?

[PATRICK]

15. The "Hillary can't win" group

is a disheartening counterpart to the GOP wild hope should she run. Personally I argue against that sentiment among DUers except for the reminder that our last two Dem winners of the vote never got to serve(Gore and Kerry).

Without bashing or predictions of defeat or dire results of the GOP or herself continuing to take the country to corporatist rule, the various factors weigh very heavily. Maybe some are not true or subject to harsh disagreement.

Edwards is running populist, positive and will earn a mandate unlike most other progressive candidates to lead the nation this way. And in specific policies fairly large and significant in scope. Publicly backing the paper ballot after years of nearly universal deafness and blindness by the party to the entire subject. A realistic health care program that will pry the fingers of the middlemen off the money pot and make them compete with the government- a very instructive lesson as to the real nature of the "free" market and government services. In the past most Dem candidates offered model programs with symbolic value much smaller than these two alone. Edwards surpasses Bill Clinton in leading the nation away from the blue dogs and into the blue.

As a Southener and talking that talk he will help move that region toward progress, higher Dem representation. More Reps. more progressive and tied as well to the top of the ticket progressive lean. Purportedly the GOP who might cross over will only accept Edwards or Obama and Hillary is frozen in negatives that would hurt the entire party. As a local concern, ironically in NY, Hillary's home state,
my guy Eric Massa will again try to unseat the troll Kuhl. It is a gerrymandered heavily GOP district. A bit of cheating and big turnout such as Hillary and possible victory for the GOP might inspire and his chances of an upset are grim. What of the other seats we could have won in 2006? To build on that progress we have to surge not start calculating our fixed line stuck with the Clinton factors frozen in time. Obama seems to have good possibilities in the big win department, GOP crossover too, but it is not so much HIS experience but OUR experience of him that is lacking. We really are not sure how this first timer is going to do. Still, that is better than fixed, virulent, enemy emboldening negatives, unfair and despicable as they are. Yes Hillary can win, but no one wants then to talk about coattails.

Edwards can and seems poised to make a big noise about making damn sure this time the vote will count -even in a win- and know the reason why and who is responsible. Impunity, immunity from prosecution should be swept off the table. Repress the suppressors with honest to God fear and consequences. The others will choose not to notice and try to fight the Kerry style fight off the center stage.

On all the issues and most of his positions I am behind him and that is added to electoral advantages sorely needed just to get quickly and most of the way back to the representation and agenda that truly represents America. Obama is certainly aiming that way himself although he has evinced some perturbing DLC attitudes that are the taint of the last corrupted decades of fake conservative influence and lies.
If he later chooses a staff in comes the hungry Clinton crowd, plan B, and others to sell the progress and restoration short.

If Obama's charisma and general appeal is still uncertain and unproved it is only fair to point out that the above reasons may not be absolute or totally successful against the big GOP smear machine. We currently have no great sure name that would give us the track record proof. Bill Clinton would because he won- and served. Gore and Kerry won as well, but that has produced a lot of fog and doubt concerning our real strength among the real voters. We start off, despite some progress against a growing and unpunished fraud machine, with a deficit, knowing we can win and yet not "win". Stumbling around in that doubt gives us worse footing than in the past trying to argue electability. If you combined all of our candidates into one superhuman mega-messiah it would make the whole situation go away. As it is the GOP almost dares us to hope, teases us to despair, by grooming pathetic no-ways in total arrogance that the will of the people is any obstacle to perpetrating another fraud.

It isn't absolutely clearcut or certain, but the weight of it all comes down for me to Edwards as the best and most progressive hope for both victory and the best agenda and the most steps for putting things right.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Cavuto who?

[GreenTea]

16. Why are all republicans trashing Edwards and push Hillary each day? Today Repug Ken Starr law firm

and Bush administration official Jay Lefkowitz, have given more to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign than to all of the top Republican candidates combined.

Hard-core republican Rupert Murdoch giving fundraisers for Hillary...Many other republicans have donated to hillary as well.

So why on earth would the GOP encourage Hillary?


"I believe that the GOP does not make any political moves that do not relate to their “big picture” strategy. In this case, they want to encourage Hillary Clinton to run, as a method of discouraging Al Gore from running. In my opinion, Al Gore has the greatest chance of winning the Presidency in 2008, because he already won it once in 2000. Al Gore can do what Hillary can not – which is plant the flag in Denver & rally the pro-environmental western United States.


Hillary running for President hurts Al Gore in two ways. The first is that Hillary will absorb a large percentage of fundraising dollars. She has proven herself apt in the fundraising department, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The second way it hurts Al Gore, is that there is rumored bad blood as a result of the 2000 election strategy to distance himself from Bill Clinton. That may or may not exist, but Hillary’s strong presence in the 2008 race, coupled with her fundraising abilities could be devastating to other Democratic hopefuls, and this is exactly what the GOP would like to see.


The GOP can run against Hillary Clinton and secure a win. Currently, there is no better candidate for the GOP to run against. The republicans are in a lot of trouble, but they can capitalize on the large amount of anti-Hillary sentiment that already exists among their faithful. So I think that the GOP perception of Hillary as the unstoppable juggernaut is a façade.

Also as it stands now the republicans obviously want John Edwards gone as soon as possible who would be much tougher to beat for the republicans and much prefer Hillary Clinton to run against."

[PurityOfEssence]

18. The reactionaries' Hillary win-win-win strategy.

1) They don't think she can win a general election, so they want her to be the nominee. I totally agree with them; her negatives are so high that she's got a miniscule chance, barring unforseen and extreme circumstances. The moralistic disgust machine will also have a romp tarring her as ethically unfit and will use this to slander Democrats in general.

2) Of the major Democratic contenders, she's BY FAR the most favorable to the interests of business and entrenched wealth, so if things totally go to hell for them and she gets elected, she's still the best option. As a serial appeaser, the more they blame her, the more she'll let them get their way, just as Bill still tried to curry favor with them during and after the impeachment.

3) If she manages to get elected in this mess of a time, she'll be left holding the bag if the economy fails or our foreign entanglements get even worse. Everything will be our fault, and they'll accuse us of everything from incompetence to socialism to cowardice and back again.

[Robson]

19. Bingo, your analysis is spot on

I agree too that the GOP does want Hillary to run, just as they wanted a weak GOP candidate to run against Liebermann in CT., so they didn't end up with a strong Democrat. They see Hillary as their best hope to turn off the independents of America.

Will Hillary will be an easy target for talk radio and Republican candidates? They'll use every political tactic in their bag of tricks and one of the most potent could be to capitalize on the Bush families failure. They may ask the question, do we really want another entitled royal family in the Whitehouse? After 8 years of Bush Jr., that will be a red hot issue for many, especially independents.

I'd say the best bet for a land slide victory is with a true populist.