Day: 6/1/2007

Media Gangs Up On John Edwards

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm. 2 Comments :

In the past couple of weeks, the press has taken a decidedly negative turn on John Edwards. The ferocity of the attacks and the diversity of their origin is curious, to say the least. Their obsession with housing and haircuts and speaking fees has become all-consuming. This media phenomenon was apparent to media critic and author Jeff Cohen who wrote:

“The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known – that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear – that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.”

Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani. Here is a sampling of the assault:

Jonah Goldberg: “[Edwards] gives new meaning to the term “poverty pimp.”

USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”

Sean Hannity: “[Edwards isn’t] up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that’s being waged against us.”

Jim Cramer (on Hardball): “[Edwards is] public enemy #1.”

Bill O’Reilly: “The former vice presidential candidate has sold his soul to far left interests […] Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house […] Talking Points tries to respect all of those who want to serve their country, but Edwards is an exception. I have no respect for him. He’s a phony and is in the tank for special interests to damage this country.”

As an added bonus, O’Reilly offers swag for sale at his web site about which he says, “remember, when you buy anything on BillOReilly.com, a good portion of what you spend goes to charities, send a lot of kids, poor kids to camp this summer.”

Is O’Reilly a hypocrite as well because he is a multi-millionaire advocating help for poor kids? I might have a little more sympathy for these arguments if any of Edwards’ critics placed even a fraction of the effort on behalf of America’s poor that Edwards does. Edwards himself posed this question in response to these criticisms:

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

This whole line of attack seems preposterous to me. First of all it is implying that you cannot be wealthy and concerned about the poor at the same time. If that’s true, it exempts about 90% of Congress and every presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, except for Dennis Kucinich. Secondly, it is a rejection of the American Dream that holds that everyone can share in this nation’s prosperity; everyone except John Edwards, who is to be pilloried for the audacity of being born poor but achieving great wealth through hard work and determination.

You have to wonder why Edwards is getting hit so hard from so many directions. Jeff Cohen believes it has something to do with Edwards’ criticism of corporate-driven trade policies. Certainly that position would anger the captains of industry that wield so much influence in American government. And remember, many of those captains are at the helm of media conglomerates. It was probably not lost on those folks that Edwards was the first Democrat to refuse to participate in the Fox debate.

But I think that just brushes the surface of their objections. I think it goes much deeper into the matter of the class distinctions raised by Edwards’ “Two Americas” campaign. They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table. This fear has already been articulated by Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine to Brit Hume on Fox:

“Well, I think the most interesting thing about these speeches was the extent to which both candidates borrowed from the No. 2 candidate we saw there, John Edwards […] to me it’s like they’re all joined at the hip on domestic policy”

It isn’t Edwards that they are all afraid of. It is economic populism, fair trade, and, in the end, the American Dream. That’s what the media and their mouthpieces in politics and punditry are trying to kill.

CIA Won’t Play Fair Game With Plame

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 1:55 am. NO Comments :

The CIA is refusing to permit publication of a book by former covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Ms. Wilson’s cover was blown by Bush administration officials in retaliation for critical comments made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, regarding trumped up evidence for the invasion of Iraq. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby has already been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for giving false testimony in the investigation of this affair.

The agency is claiming that information in the book, “Fair Game,” is classified and prohibited from publication. That would seem to be a reasonable position had the Agency not already sent unclassified versions of the data to Wilson which was subsequently published in the Congressional Record. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, are now suing the Agency to secure permission to publish her memoir.

This is a blatant example of prior restraint and a violation of free speech rights. The notion that data that has previously been publicly disclosed can be forced back into obscurity is absurd, especially in this Internet age when information is widely dispersed and recorded. The data in question regards Wilson’s dates of employment with the Agency, and those dates are even published in the newspaper accounts of this litigation. It’s not exactly top secret.

We need to remember that we are dealing with the most secrecy obsessed administration in history; an administration that has been busily RE-classifying thousands of documents that were previously de-classified, and taking many more steps to inhibit open government and free access to materials of interest to the public.

It is particularly ironic that the White House that cavalierly outed Wilson as part of a political vendetta is now pretending to be concerned about operational security. A spokesman for the CIA gave this explanation for why they were refusing Wilson’s request to publish:

“Official acknowledgment of certain matters could cause some on whom we rely to think that we do not take protecting sensitive equity seriously, or cause them to think twice about assisting us in the future, and that could have serious ramifications.”

If they were truly concerned about the ramifications of not protecting sensitive equity, maybe they shouldn’t have unveiled Wilson’s identity in the first place. And while they are now calling it a “mistake” to have released her dates of employment, there has still been no acknowledgement that blowing her cover might also have been an error. This hypocrisy only affirms that the obvious intent of the CIA, and their bosses in the White House, is to frustrate Wilson’s efforts to tell her story because it might embarrass a corrupt and dishonest administration. Let’s hope that the courts demonstrate more integrity and rule to uphold the First Amendment.