Washington Post launches biggest hit piece yet on John Edwards

antiimperialist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-12-07 04:42 PM
Original message

Washington Post launches biggest hit piece yet on John Edwards

Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 04:46 PM by antiimperialist

As if the haircut stories had not been enough, Dana Milbank wrote on Monday a clear hit piece against John Edwards. I don't think I found anything positive about Edwards in this piece. See for yourself how bad it was:

During his first run for the presidency four years ago, John Edwards posed a question to his audiences: "Are you in fact looking for somebody who can say the nastiest thing about the other candidate, or are you looking for someone who can lift this country up?"

This time around, Edwards is answering the question himself. Mr. Nice Guy of '04 has remade himself as Nasty Boy of '08 -- a tightly wound ball of belligerence prowling for a skirmish.

Don't forget about the haircut:

"What America needs right now is America needs a fighter," says the candidate, who was a trial lawyer and a Democratic senator from North Carolina. "Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy."

Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut.

But Edwards is not winning at this particular moment. Speaking before the DNC crowd, he found that his "stand with me" line did not cause audience members to stand. Neither did they rally behind his "one America" and "fighter" themes. And so he kept going, turning a tight 10-minute stump speech into a rambling 25-minute address that ended only when a DNC official stood impatiently at the candidate's elbow.

In the next paragraph, Milbank makes us think for a second that he thinks Edwards is honest. the But he goes on to mock Edwards by implying that he, John, wants us to believe he's honest, but isn't. Reach your own conclusion:

Still, we know that Edwards means what he says. We know this because he says everything loudly, shouting from beginning to end as he denounces the "rigged" system in Washington. For further evidence of sincerity, he swaps his trademark smile for a pained squint when he speaks about the "disappointment" of the parents who have no money for their children's college, and he shakes his fist when he demands removal of the "wall."

Then Milbank goes on to say that Edwards should remind everyone every single time he gives a speech that he voted for the war in 2004, ignoring that he apologized.

There are many things Edwards does not say, however. While arguing that "it is not okay that No Child Left Behind has left us behind," he neglects to mention that he voted for that education legislation. When he thumps the lectern and speaks of the need to "end this war" in Iraq, he omits the fact that he voted to give President Bush the authority to start the war. And while it sounds good for him to say "I did not walk away from the fight" as a product-liability lawyer, he skips the part about walking away from the Senate in 2004, effectively ceding the seat to Republicans.

There is more. Milbank blames Edwards for not being a fighter because he left the senate in 2004.

Next, Milbank blames Edwards for not offering specifics about his proposals:

For all his wordiness, Edwards is mostly silent when it comes to policy details. The stump speech offers few specifics about what he would do, even as he told his DNC audience that he would build "one America" -- eight times. "Will you join me in creating one America?" he asked.

The hit piece was criticized yesterday by Media Watchdog Fair.org, who said about Milbank,

A nasty little piece on John Edwards points out that the candidate's speeches are short on policy details (as opposed to, say, the imaginary candidate who goes through a detailed PowerPoint presentation on healthcare?). He writes that when Edwards "thumps the lectern and speaks of the need to 'end this war' in Iraq, he omits the fact that he voted to give President Bush the authority to start the war." Given that Edwards' anti-war rhetoric is almost singularly defined by the fact that he's ashamed that he voted for the war, it's unclear how one could conclude that he's trying to fool anyone. But of course, Milbank saves space for the easiest attack:

and

Count on a mainstream tool like Milbank to keep alive the No. 1 cliche of campaign 2008. You can imagine how he would have reported on FDR.

Contact Dana Milbank:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dana+milbank/