******Newsweek ENDORSES John Edwards*******(more or less)

[FrenchieCat]

Or at the very least, promotes him big time in their next issue, just right before the Iowa Caucus.


Why would Newsweek, Corporate magazine arm of General Electric, be so kind to John Edwards, anti-Corporate Candidate?

The cover of Newsweek and a 5 pages positive article on how Edwards can win Iowa right before Iowans vote hits the newstand with a December 24th date.


I thought that the corporations were deathly scared of him, and want him silenced? :shrug:


link to 5 page spread......"THE ROAD WARRIOR"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78238

[1corona4u]

1. If it smells like fish, it's fish.

[polichick]

2. Interesting shot...

Quite different from the one with the L.L.Bean jacket and the dog.

[TwilightZone]

3. The "corporations are scared of him" meme is misguided, at best.

I tend to roll my eyes every time I see it used.

Corporations have preferences, of course, but no one, including John Edwards, is going to drastically change corporate culture in this country as the next president. Too much money; too much power.

[IndyOp]

9. We are. We have to.

Drastically change corporate culture in this country - starting now, starting as individuals, working in any and all ways we can.

Edwards can't change corporate culture - no President can - but he can help us do that and if he gets off track, like Bill Clinton did, we'll just have to pull him back on track.

[Cha]

14. Yeah, like the Des Moine Register

that endorsed the corporate loving hillary stated that Edwards "wasn't corporate friendly enough"..I don't know why the corporatewhores wouldn't want him since he's for The People.

[amandabeech]

60. Corporate culture doesn't change easily.

Frankly, I'm not sure that it can. Certainly, current corporation law that requires the corporation to maximize long term profits, if not short term ones, coupled with the "shareholder rights" movement, does not bode well. Even pension funds, which are large corporate shareholders, are governed by their fiduciary duty to the corpus of the fund and its beneficiaries, which is to maximize the corpus or principle of the fund. That means that if firing folks who are beneficiaries if that means the corporation runs better and makes more profits, so be it.

The only thing that you can do is regulate the hell out of them and scare the shit out of them by seriously bulking up all state and federal attorneys offices, including general counsels of regulators like the SEC and the Treasury.


But that won't happen until we have publicly financed elections. Really, the best candidate is going to have to "dance with those whut brung them," as they used to say in Texas. Everything else is just BS.

I am convinced that this will take a well-considered Constitutional Amendment that even John Roberts can't turn on its head.

My recollection is that Kucinich and maybe Edwards have called for this. Lets hear Obama and Clinton and the rest call for it, too.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Yep, Rove's mag is trying to make sure he doesn't stay under the radar.

But, somehow, the pic seems to be a warning. :shrug:

I'm encouraged to hear that the article is positive. MKJ

[FrenchieCat]

8. "Rove's mag is trying to make sure he doesn't stay in the radar."??? How's that?

What better way to be brought to favorable attention than with a great cover shot, Christmas Edition, and a lengthy article that is not a smear?

Please explain.

Thanks.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Sleeper = which definition here?

One that achieves unexpected recognition or success, as a racehorse or movie.

or

A spy or saboteur who is planted in an enemy country and who lives unobtrusively as a citizen of that country until activated into clandestine operations by a prearranged signal. ?

That's all.

I've been boycotting Newsweek since they hired Rove and will continue to do so. That is an artful cover which is open to interpretation. And, I really am glad their story is objective and not a smear. I may look at them again, in the future, if they can maintain objective political reporting. MKJ

[FrenchieCat]

38. They would have called him the Manchurian candidate if it would have

been the 2nd definition......

Sleeper, for most, means something that you didn't expect, i.e., passed under the radar, and unexpectantly came to the fore....as in movie, racehorse (horserace is what the placement of candidates is called these days)

[Andy823]

108. You sound a tad "paranoid"!

You sure do have a lot of "hate" for Edwards. Must be worried your candidate won't win to attack him so much! Why not just tell everyone why your candidate is better?:eyes:

[Bicoastal]

40. Um, you're reaching.

I have never heard "sleeper" used like that (your second definition) to refer to a political candidate. NEVER.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard that second definition used without the word "cell" following it.

Your cynicism is understandable, but I don't think there's any real sublimal messaging going on here--most National newspapers have done lead stories on the candidates who are between 1st and third place in the last few weeks. I remember Romney, then Obama on Time Magazine last month. I also expect to see Huckabee on a cover any day now...

It's ALL about what will tap into the most demographics and make the publisher the most money. Thats why it makes sense to do cover profiles on as many different candidates from both parties as possible--that is, candidates above a certain percentage in the polls.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

51. I can't help but believe, in this day of code words, as Thom Hartmann so expertly points out,

that we are inundated with veiled attempts to communicate specifically with one group of citizens, while giving the impression of neutrality to others.

That belief, combined with my wholesale distrust of any "news" outlet that would hire Rove, with his history of lies and obfuscation, is the basis for my cynicism.

However, it is nothing more than an opinion, and your well reasoned response provides food for thought. MKJ

[Bicoastal]

I just don't think journalists are that smart...

...that they'd say "Hey, let's use a word on the cover with J. Edwards that has an obvious positive connotation, but also a second, more obscure negative connotation!" By and large, only novelists and poets think like that. Journalists usually want text on the cover that's snappy, concise and won't get them sued.

In fact, not only are they not smart, but most PEOPLE wouldn't be perceptive enough to think of that second meaning. Admit it, you had to run to a dictionary to find it, right? So would I. So would nearly everybody. "Sleeper" in the sense of "Sleeper cell" just isn't on the tip of most people's tongues.

You may think I'm harping, but I'm not--I just think that your well-deserved cyncism is reading too much into the double-meanings of common words (not loaded political words like "enemy" and "vicotry") that most journalists are too rushed to dally with and most news-readers wouldn't comprehend. This isn't the first time I've seen this argument, and I think you can drive yourself completely crazy HUNTING for bias if it isn't staring right you in the face.

Now, "Rats" used to refer to Democrats in those famous commercials--that wasn't by accident. Still, when it comes to bias, I find that the choice of visual representation is the most obvious, and usually the most telling. Like when Time Magazine tinted OJ's skin to make him darker, or when Fox "accidentally" referred to Mark Foley and other GOP lawbreakers with a (D) next to their names.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

86. How about this from the article...compared to their article about Huckabee?

I posted this further down the thread.
I'm also thinking of Time magazine's infamous cover of Pres. Clinton, as a photographic negative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3846378&mesg_id=3847013

MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

93. I also disagree with your assertion about journalists and cite Seymour Hersh, Naomi Klein and Matt

Taibbi, for starters.

MKJ

[FrenchieCat]

100. Apart from Matt Taibbi who I believe is not a good journalist.....

I would count the others as 2, as in one, two.

There are a few other good ones, but as far as percentagewise, I'd say that the good come out to about 2% of the bad.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

102. Where did you come by your statistics?

MKJ

[IndyOp]

5. General Electric is also the corporate parent of Keith Olbermann's Countdown -

and, as Keith on Bill Moyers' show just a few nights back, they will do what earns them money.

They are earning money hand over fist on Countdown - Olbermann is a progressive fighter. So is Edwards.

[polichick]

12. Yep, could be a simple explanation: the bottom line. nt

[FrenchieCat]

16. Keith Olbermann is not running for President. Keith has one show

on one channel.

This is the cover that will be seen at the check out counter of every grocery store in the nation.

This is great promotion for John Edwards, from a Corporate entity, and you know it.

If they wanted Hillary or Obama, the timing to put Edwards on the cover could not be weirder.

[IndyOp]

49. It looks like Time & Newsweek can't make up their minds...

My heart belongs to this guy:


On edit: I don't know why I included the Mitt Romney cover <- :puke: I returned to remove it out of a sense of compassion for my DU friends! :hi:

[robinlynne]

54. Thank goodnesss there is one person on this thread with some sanity. Thanks

IndyOp!

[FrenchieCat]

66. The dates are what are telling.......

The articles about Obama and Clinton (none really all that flattering at all) were done 6 months ago or older......when voters weren't paying attention.


John Edwards gets his close up now, right before voters vote, and precisely when voters are looking for information to help them make a determination as to who to go with.

It's really is that simple.

Edwards getting this is actually as good as it could get for him. The media left him alone and tore up the other two, got voters tired of hearing about Front-runners and inevitability. Edwards got the mantle as being the underdog that the media didn't "want", and now it is time to vote.

I find the media to be very effective in determining who will end up winning.
Their influence and how they use it in nothing short of "ART".

[robinlynne]

69. so you are saying that because Newsweek did an article on Edwards, therefore

an Edwards presidency would be pro-corporate. sophism. plain and simple.
linking Hillary to Mark PEnn makes sense. She hired him. inking Edwards to GE because there is an article in Newsweek....far-fetched.

[FrenchieCat]

78. NO, what I am saying is that Edwards will not end up as President.....

instead, I believe that the Corporate Interest want him as the Nominee....just not as President.

They will bring him down when they want...because I do personally believe that John Edwards is the easiest Dem Candidate to beat...due to a whole host of reasons, not the least being his acceptance of Matching Funds.

[robinlynne]

104. Well, I'm glad to say, you are the only person who thinks that. All research shows otherwise.

Against each republican, Edwards is the winner by the largest margin of anyone. He is the one candidate we KNOW wins the General.

[surfermaw]

109. Hate to burst your bubble, he is the only one of the 3 that can get elected

[Cha]

6. Okay! I love that look

on John's face..go get 'em Tiger!

As far as why the corporate newsweek would promote John Edwards? I don't know..interesting story? It's a shocker.

[robbedvoter]

7. That can't be - media is AFRAID of John Edwards - at least it sez so on DU!

I mean, the Omnibus law in 2004 allowing media consolidation passed for the lack of 2 votes in opposing it (Kerry and Edwards were busy that time a year), but one can't think there'd be quid pro quo in that, can one?

[antiimperialist]

10. Did Newsweek endorse him or are you making that up?

I think you should change your headline if a formal endorsement didn't occur. It would be misleading.

[ElizabethDC]

13. It seems that Newsweek didn't actually endorse him. n/t

[antiimperialist]

18. In that case, shouldn't the moderator lock this thread based on a lie?

I would think so, but I have faith that the fellow DU'er who started this thread will slightly change his headline.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I have "corrected" my title, although I believe this is a better endorsement

in terms of how it was done than others.

A picture, a great title, and a great 5 page article. Kind of like a Christmas present to John Edwards, IMO.

[antiimperialist]

24. That's fair enough

thanks.

[jenmito]

26. Wolf Blitzer said Newsweek endorsed him.

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

33. Which makes it "Mishun accomplished" in the echo chambers

Just reminding people, Time thought Rove should be in jail, not on their staff, but Newsweek had no such standards...(and I am not in anyway endorsing Time here)

[jenmito]

37. Yup...

I'm just glad they got a picture of him NOT touching his face or NOT darting out his tongue. I can't stand watching him.

[maximusveritas]

11. They're giving us just enough so that we don't grow

too suspicious of their evil corporate conspiracy.

[Cha]

21. That's my

cynical view and will have it until proven otherwise.

[Cameron27]

15. The Road Warrior?

Well, it looks like Newsweek's doing a big push for Edwards. Despite all the propaganda, it doesn't look like MSM's afraid of Edwards.

[balantz]

17. Perhaps they know something about those silly poll numbers.

Maybe they see they will likely have to work with this man and his team.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Perhaps they are part of what makes those "silly" poll numbers go up and down......

right before the Iowa vote.

[Quixote1818]

20. Many of Newsweek's writers are regulars on Air America

It seems to be one of the few more left leaning Magazines left.

[FrenchieCat]

25. So Newsweek is progressive, and DMR is a RW rag......

Right?

[Quixote1818]

28. I don't know? Are they?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

34. Not to my knowledge.......

They and Times (owned by Time-Warner) are the biggest political magazines in the country.

Even those who don't buy their magazine read the cover.....

sleep·er (slpr)
n.

a. One that achieves unexpected recognition or success, as a racehorse or movie.

[robbedvoter]

29. You mean like Alan Colmes and the like? All righty then!

[Quixote1818]

31. Michale Isikoff is a regular on the Young Turks, Randi Rhodes etc.

nt

[robbedvoter]

106. Isicoff was one of the starting of lies in the Arkansas project (kathleen Whylie & stuff)

He did a lot of damage to Gore in 2000 as well.
If he is your "progressive" shining example for Newsweek, it's a lost cause.

[NYCGirl]

36. Alan Colmes does not work for Air America. Neither does Ed Schultz, although

both of their shows are on SOME Air America stations.

[ruggerson]

22. Very cool

n/t

[jsamuel]

30. Lie

They did not endorse him.

[melody]

32. Good for John, despite the wishes of the OP n/t

[FrenchieCat]

35. But you don't answer the OP.....why would Newsweek do John any favors......

Regardless of what this DUer wishes are. :shrug:

I'm talking about a political figure running for President, and you're talking about me. Why?

[melody]

39. Because it is about you ... it's about this ludicrous battle between politician fan factions

I want our party to emerge supreme. I want our party to win. I think John Edwards has the best shot at doing this.
An Edwards/Obama ticket would do that for us. What's more important to you -- that your candidate win or that
we win? My heart is with Gore or Kucinich. I don't see either one running or having a chance.

I'm so sick of this ludicrous cult of personality around candidates. I respect all the people running. I'm so tired
of this pouting "but I wuv my candidate" crap. Sorry, I don't mean to take it out on you but it's beginning to sound
like a board filled with celebrity fan club presidents.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Sorry, but I don't belong to a fan club this time around......

I'm posting what I see and what I think.......just like everyone else is.

I don't have a problem that you support John Edwards, and I will not attack you personally or make a denigrating comments about you or your motives for posting whatever you post about John Edwards.

I want the same courtesy.

This cover story of John Edwards is important and is news.....and it is a fact, IMO, that the point that many here have made that the media didn't "want" John Edwards is being countered by this article by a nationwide magazine....

and so, I believe that my OP is relevant, and I believe that your personal "shot" at me is not.

[melody]

45. It isn't a personal shot at you as a person, it's about the trend you represent

You've repeatedly made pro-Obama posts. I've read them. I admire your devotion to the candidate. But this kind of
hit-piece posting doesn't help anything, in my opinion. It just fragments us, which is what the GOP wants.

I apologize for any personal insult you gleaned from my remarks, but if we don't hang together, etc, etc.

[FrenchieCat]

50. How is this a "Hit" piece? Please explain yourself.

These are primaries, and I'm reading a whole lot of "Hits" on all of the candidates here, some more than others.

If my posting is something that is actually happening, and I'm asking a germaine question (considering that I've read like about 100 times at DU that John Edwards is being ignored by the media), why do you choose to characterize my OP as a Hit?

I am interested in Politics, and this is a political board, and so, I discuss politics. You seem to have a problem with that, and that's really too bad.

--------
The reason that I posted this OP is due to the prediction that I have been making about our primary elections. Earlier last week I made certain predictions about John Edwards that is proving true. Why should I not discuss this? :shrug:

The well publicized media storyline of "Obama vs. Hil" rumbles have cleared the way for an Edwards rise just in the nick of time (funny how synchronized it all is). Now, please know that Edwards will not be rising because of anything special that he has recently said or done, but rather because he is now the underdog waiting to come on the scene who can provide Iowans another choice other than the over-reported candidates; Obama and Hillary. Going forward on, for the next two weeks, Edwards is about to garnet much more press, most of it positive (as he did in 2003-04 in the last two weeks prior to Iowa). Edwards' been weakened significantly by his acceptance of matching funds, which makes him a more acceptable candidate for the Corporate Media......as it could lead to an exciting and "against the current CW" GOP victory in the general election (which the Corporate media prefers at the end anyways....cause they are...corporate, after all). But till then, Edwards is now ready for his close up in the primary story line.


Current Prediction:

I will call Iowa for Edwards....and I am not sure, but I believe that Iowa will propel Edwards to, at the very least, a 2nd place finish in New Hampshire.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3823244

[melody]

It is what it is. It's too nice a morning to get into a board wrestling match.

Have a good one.

[sandnsea]

68. Pssst, it helps Hillary

I actually can't believe they would do this, but it makes sense. Have you been listening to the strategists say that Hillary's people were going to throw to Edwards to keep Obama from winning Iowa? Well this article fits right in with that strategy. Push Edwards the last two weeks to keep Obama from winning, and then go back to Hillary in Iowa.

[balantz]

41. What is in the article?

I haven't read it to make further judgement.

[FrenchieCat]

44. 5 page spread......"THE ROAD WARRIOR"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78238

[balantz]

53. Thanks for posting that.

[FrenchieCat]

56. The link was also in the OP....at the bottom......

:hi:

[balantz]

58. Oh, sorry, I missed that.

:)

[TwilightGardener]

42. That's a nice cover photo of him--I had to tear off the cover photo this week of Fuckabee--

couldn't look at his crazy eyes for even a second.

[Quixote1818]

46. I think they decided to go with the story they thought would sell the most magazines

They decided to go the route of "Everyone loves the underdog". Not to mention, John Edwards has a movie star face which always sells magazines.

[cali]

64. now that is most logical, reasonable explanation on this

crazy ass thread.

[aquart]

47. Has it occurred to anyone here that corporations are not one huge lump?

Different corporations have different requirements to achieve a profit. They can be in extreme conflict with each other.

The mindset here about corporations is just as biased and ignorant as thinking all Christians are the same, or all Jews, or all blacks.

[Quixote1818]

52. And in this situation they are simply looking to sell as many magazines as possible

Put a good looking underdog on the cover and you have a winner! Everyone loves an underdog, especially if he looks like Tom Cruse. It's all about selling magazines and $$$$$$$!

[disndat]

48. Considering Newsweek

has Rove on the staff and other RWers, even with Isakoff and Fineman, this is a real head scratcher. Maybe Newsweek really thinks the U.S. is going down the tubes and a Democrat will emerge next year, so Edwards would be the best person to pull us out of the whirlpool.

[robinlynne]

55. This is not an endorsement. It is a magazine article. Every channel, every program,

every magazine right now spends one large issue on each of the winning candidates. It is called election primary time. And selling magaiznes, or tv space.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Winning candidates? No one has won yet. And great timing for

John Edwards! He's having some "luck" after all. To be featured this close to the vote, when folks are paying the most attention!

To contrast, here's the last cover of Hillary in Newsweek dated May 28, 2007
Cant' seem to find the URL for the cover to post it, but it was a photo of Bill whispering in Hillary's ear, and was titled the "Bill factor".


Here's the last cover with Obama on it, dated July 16, 2007:


It appears that they has been a 6 month hiatus in promoting the "winning" Dem candidates on the cover of Newsweek! :shrug:

[robinlynne]

70. one hour interview with Bill clinton on Charlie Rose. Is that an endorsement?

No, it is an interview.

[FrenchieCat]

92. How many saw that interview, compared to how many will see this newsweek cover?

Let's put it this way, If I had to pick which, My husband appearing on Charlie Rose once in mid December versus getting a handsome cover and a 5 page spread in a magazine found in every 7-11, grocery story and drug store in the country along with millions in home delivery and on-line access 2 weeks before a vote, Christmas Eve edition......I'd pick Newsweek hands down, as my chosen promo.

What about you? Which would you choose?

[chimpymustgo]

99. Sorry this peeves you so much, Frenchie. Really, life's too short. nt

nt

[FrenchieCat]

101. No peeves....just newsworthy......a million of newstands, and a relevant post, far as I'm concerned.

the primaries are almost here.....so yeah, it will be over before we know what hit us.

[robinlynne]

105. I dont read newsweek. It is empty.

[balantz]

57. I read the article and didn't find it to be an endorsement.

In fact I think it has negative undertones highlighting all of those negative attack points that are used against him. I don't like the black and white photo either, it's a negative shot. The media focus on the article ("endorsement") is to get more people to read it and come away with a list of negatives, not a list of positive things Edwards wants to accomplish.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Please provide us with the "Negative" text in the article......

to support your "opinion" that this is a negative more than a positive for John Edwards.

Thanks!

[balantz]

73. I started to do the pasting work required for a response for you,

but decided I didn't want to spend the time doing all that. It is only my feeling and opinion so I'd rather not go into endless arguing about what I came away with. Anyone here can read for themselves and see what they think. I can say briefly that to me the article painted the picture of a man who had a personal agenda to get back at Corporate America for the wrongs he experienced in his youth, and how he hides behind a smile, and persona that is maybe not genuine. It made him fit that mold of the smiling, driven lawyer who wants power at any cost and is driven to attain that power. Those are some of the negative attack points. That picture of Edwards is not the person I see him as.

[balantz]

75. So I'm picky...

I expect focus on issues and what he has planned to accomplish for America.

[last_texas_dem]

74. Mentions Edwards's interest in working as a corporate lawyer

when young, mentions criticism of his performance as Kerry's running mate, particularly during the debate with Cheney, mentions the big house, mentions the hedge fund, mentions "son of a mill worker" repetition coming across as a parody, mentions question of "testing" how his going negative against Clinton recently would play with voters, etc. Those are just a few things I'm remembering from reading the article about half an hour ago. Reads like a pretty balanced article, with a decent amount of "negative" content, and not at all some sort of rah-rah endorsement.

[balantz]

77. Okay, I'll buy that. It could be worse.

There was a balance to it and will concede it could help him out.

[last_texas_dem]

81. I definitely see where you're coming from

on considering the article to be largely negative. The number of negative things in it actually kind of jumped out at me, and I wondered if it would actually do more harm than good to Edwards. However, I think just the fact of being on the cover and the "underdog" framing could be helpful, and there are a number of things mentioned in the article, personal anecdotes and the like, that put him in a fairly positive light. I was just providing those negatives to FrenchieCat because I was under the impression that she was seeing the article as a total positive for the Edwards campaign.

[balantz]

84. The media is cunning.

Let's hope people are able to see through the slant. Anyway, Edwards is doing a good job with his grassroots support to over-ride the negatives. Our hope is that many want real change and are doing careful research.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

80. I'll give it shot...hated to give Newsweek the click, but here goes:

Newsweek article on Edwards:

Even if he loses in Iowa's bigger cities...
>
Instead, he'd failed to dominate any of them, not even Georgia. He was finished.
>
A relentless trial lawyer who got rich by outworking and outpreparing the competition, he spent the last three years applying those skills to plot his comeback.
>
And early missteps—the $400 haircut, the 25,000-square-foot mansion, the job at a hedge fund—raised questions about his authenticity and fed an impression among some voters that his common-man populism was more conceit than conviction.
>
..he can become prickly and defensive in private..
>
Yet asked what lessons he had learned as a candidate in 2004 and what he is doing differently this time, Edwards turned cold.

Newsweek article on Huckabee:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74469/page/1

Huckabee's success is due, in part, to right-time, right-place luck. But he says it comes from above.
>
...just as the former Republican governor of Arkansas was unexpectedly rising in the Iowa polls...
>
An ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee immediately won over the crowd with a typically self-deprecating joke.
>
...Huckabee hopes his charm will help overcome any qualms secular voters...
>
Huckabee jokes that he used to have trouble getting anyone to take his picture with a cell phone.

And, so on and so forth.

MKJ

[balantz]

82. That's it!

Thanks for doing the work.

:hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

83. Happy to do it.

:toast: MKJ

[Greylyn58]

117. I agree. There seems to be a nasty undertone to this article

There is something about it I don't really like.

[IndyOp]

59. It is not an endorsement unless it specifically says it is - and it doesn't...

Which means that the title of this thread is untrue.

[FrenchieCat]

62. I provide my reasoning why "I" consider this an endorsement.....

so stop the whining. If John Edwards is your candidate, the Newsweek feature helps him a great deal....and it does not hurt him.

Take what you get, cause this Newsweek "right before they vote" 5 page piece with nice photo is a great promo for Edwards; better than money could buy!

And yet you are complaining about it? What-E-ver! :eyes:

[IndyOp]

65. Very appropriate for you to add "more or less" to your title. (n/t)

[FrenchieCat]

67. Yes, I did edit and reported so at post 23......

Again, I'm not quite sure why this great promotion of Edwards is not being acknowledged by most of his supporters as "priceless", when they know that in "real life", this is nothing short of "Great"! :shrug:

[IndyOp]

76. I would probably be more excited for John if...

I would probably be more excited for John if...

The article spent more time on his policies and less time on his personality. I think the article re-opened old wounds that many citizens will be swayed by - haircut, big house, hedge fund... It did also reveal some positive qualities, but I would like to see more about his policies. I know that campaigns have to balance providing information about policies and personality because "personality" is really about how the person will govern - how they are likely to respond to issues that aren't at the forefront right now so they aren't expected to have an explicit policy right now.

The article was closer to Jan 3 --- there will be two more covers between now and Jan 3. Maybe this is good timing, enough time to allow voters to realize John is a very viable third candidate and to allow "chat" to build about him.

I respected Newsweek.

:eyes:

P.S. I think his supporters might've expressed more excitement about this article if they had had a chance to post a positive thread about it before yours was rated up onto the Greatest page.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

96. I call B***S**T on your "it's an endorsement" merde.

:hi: MKJ

on edit, it sounds less snarky in French. :-)

[calteacherguy]

71. .

:boring:

[loveangelc]

72. He looks kind of hot on that cover! nt

[TeamJordan23]

79. Very Misleading in the OP headline, but its good to see an Edwards story. nm

[MadBadger]

85. They also had Huckabee last week though....

[FrenchieCat]

87. Edwards has been liked by the corporate media, even when they kept him below the radar......plus

he made his fortune off of corporations
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

In '04, Edwards was sold as Kerry's primary contender by many in the media.... http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/

and prior to Kerry choosing a Veep; the media loved them some John Edwards
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040729am.asp#1

In 2004, The corporate media reported positively on John Edwards for 2 weeks prior to Iowa 100% of the time
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

Edwards profited from hedgefund via investments, contributions and salary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html

he attended bildenberg, the pennacle of corporatism elitist gathering and was praised by them
http://www.bilderberg.org/pullout.pdf

Edwards doesn't seem that "deadly" to corporations to me......regardless of his current rethoric.

[balantz]

88. I don't know if you are trying to argue that Edwards is "Corporate's Boy"

and they want him in office, or that they want him nominated so they can beat him with a Republican in the general. Either way I'm not buying it.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Nor would I expect an Edwards supporter to buy anything beyond.....

"he's most electable, period"......scenario.

I mean, according to John Edwards, he's the only one that can campaign anywhere, because......

and he's the only one that beat all Republicans in a "year away from the GE" poll touted by the corporate media....

and Edwards will have coattails because he's......

Accepting Public financing doesn't mean anything because.......

[Yael]

90. I don't get "endorsement" out of this at all. It reads like rove wrote it himself

This is about the most negative piece on the Senator that I have read to date.

[FrenchieCat]

94. What-E-ver.....

:eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

91. Actually, it looks like they're endorsing Sam Waterston!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78180

Sam Waterston is sitting inside downtown Manhattan's City Hall restaurant, shooting a scene for what will become his 317th performance as tenacious prosecutor Jack McCoy in NBC's unsinkable crime drama "Law & Order." Today, his thespian pas de deux is with Jayne Atkinson; they're filming a type of scene that's among the show's staffs of life—the negotiation of a cozy deal in a cozy restaurant booth. For Waterston, 67, this has to be like tying a pair of shoes. Actually, like fastening a pair of Velcro shoes. But on this oppressively gray morning, Waterston is peppy, punchy even, as he and Atkinson, who's playing a politician, run lines from the script. "Have you ever heard of New Yorkers for Good Government?" she says. "No." "They want you to run for a full term in the next election." "They do?" "They admire you because you're not a politician." "So they want me to become one." "Ironic, isn't it?"

Ironic indeed. The scene is clearly a wink at Fred Thompson, who left his role on "Law & Order" (as District Attorney Arthur Branch) to mount a presidential campaign. It's also ironic because Waterston, who this season is taking over Thompson's D.A. chair, is himself circling politics, though from a safer distance. He's become the spokesman—he prefers "cheerleader"—for Unity08, a reform movement that aims to put a bipartisan ticket on the presidential ballot in all 50 states. But because cruel irony is the most excellent kind, the best part is that while Thompson is the "Law & Order" actor who is running for president, Waterston is the "Law & Order" actor who arguably cuts the best shadow of a president.

Have a look at this pedigree: he was born in Massachusetts to a semanticist father and a Mayflower-descendant mother; he graduated from Yale and spent a year studying abroad at the Sorbonne; he's deeply absorbed in his Episcopal faith; he's got two vertical inches over Bush 43; he's devoted a large chunk of his professional life to putting away special-guest bad guys while modeling fine suits. In fact, many of his roles suggest a fascination with morality, justice and human suffering. He earned an Oscar nomination in 1984 for his work as journalist Sydney Schanberg in "The Killing Fields." His first notable TV role came on the short-lived drama "I'll Fly Away," which was rooted in the social tumult of the 1950s. But lest you think he's humorless, he also appeared in a faux commercial on "Saturday Night Live" endorsing insurance for the elderly against robots who "eat old people's medicine for fuel." He has a folksy demeanor, not as genteel as you'd expect, but close. His natural speech is the stuff politicos practice—it's just eloquent enough that it doesn't sound calculated.


Waterston laughs at the notion that he has a presidential air about himself, but he concedes there may be some truth at its core. "I've played presidents, so there must be something there," he says. "But maybe I got it from them." He's played presidents six times, to be precise: Abraham Lincoln four times (twice on television, twice onstage) and two fictional presidents. And while he maintains a genuine who me? humility that suggests he's surprised he was invited to the party, when he starts talking about whom he's been reading for pleasure lately—the 18th-century French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville—you almost hate to break it to the guy. He lends the roles their presidential auras, not the other way around....

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

95. The OP title is patently untrue, it is an ARTICLE about him and none too flattering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3846378&mesg_id=3847013


MKJ

[Glimmer of Hope]

97. It does point out his negatives - all of which have been covered before and seem petty .

Overall, I think think the cover and article give him some nice exposure especially when most of the time he seems to be off media's radar.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

98. My disagreement is with the OP title and saying this article is "positive". Balanced? When

compared to their article about Huckabee, I'm not inclined to that point of view, however, I'm interested to hear where in the article it accentuates his positive qualities.

I actually would like to see a better discussion of the article, with a different OP.

It seems the OP deliberately snarked the article, and then adopted a "what do you mean it's not an endorsement?" attitude, then modified it to "well I think it's an endorsement" response and to a toss off of "what-E-ver", which diminished an actual deconstruction and discussion of its merits and/or flaws.

I do like that's he getting coverage, though. It's about time and I hope Biden, Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich merit some focus, as well.

MKJ

on edit, clarification.

[autorank]

103. Hi Frenchie! Now I'm confused;) K*R

The damn Washington Post owns Newsweek. They're just dreadful, the Post, but this is not so what's a guy to think?

I'll work on it and get back to you.

:hi:

On Edit: Time to think and read - "Hoisted on their own petard" - the Post owned Newsweek does a cover that's favorable but a story that's niggling and hardly an endorsement of Edwards' viability. They think that the seemingly favorable cover, which is its, will draw people to read the article, thus achieving the continued tear down of anyone who advances progressive causes.

But here's the irony - the Post people actually think people read the articles. Wrong! They don't

SCORE AN IRONIC WIN FOR EDWARDS. They endorse him through that picture (worth 1000 words) and the attention.

The Post is probably doing this as safety valve in case there's actually a fair election where the votes are counted honestly and the real winner is ELECTED. Unlikely, but worth a cover to them so they can say, "See President Edwards, we really supported you... so go easy on that media consolidation." Won't work...

[forsberg]

107. that could be a big boost, he nearly pulled it off in 04

And had he beaten Kerry in Iowa, he probably would be president

[DFW]

110. Howard Dean was on the covers of Time and Newsweek in 2003

Fat lotta good it did him.

[laureloak]

111. Edwards isn't anti-corporation, he's anti corp power in gov.

There are good corporations that want to take our goverment back from the oil and drug companies.

[mnhtnbb]

112. What's 'sleeper' identified with? Sleeper cell. Terrorism. No way this is a positive article.

If they'd called him the underdog--that would be entirely different.

[TwilightZone]

113. Many words have more than one meaning.

"Sleeper" is a well-known term used to indicate a candidate that isn't an early favorite, but quietly comes on later in the process. If Edwards comes back and wins, sleeper is an appropriate term.

Newsweek is quite obviously using it with that intent.

[mnhtnbb]

118. Newsweek knows what it's doing. The word was chosen because of negative association

with terrorism. Ask yourself why sleeper and not underdog?

[onehandle]

114. You are a one issue poster. Trashing John Edwards.

Anything else on your little mind? Anything?

[Yuugal]

115. Yeah they endorsed him.....

Thats why the pic is so flattering. :eyes:

[Czolgosz]

116. That's in interesting choice of photos. Slightly disheveled. Calculated to help him or hurt him?

[babylonsister]

119. I don't know about an endorsement; they've been profiling each

candidate on their covers. Huckabee was on last week's, IIRC.