"Media Matters"; by Paul Waldman
The Haircut siren song
"It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care."
If you assumed this point was made by a reporter writing a story on, say, John Edwards' position on health care, you haven't been paying attention.
No, this lament came from The Washington Post's John Solomon in the midst of a 1,288-word article about -- you guessed it -- John Edwards' hair. It's some kind of commentary, all right -- but not on the state of American politics; it's a commentary on the state of American journalism.
Let us pause a moment to consider the plight of John Solomon and other reporters like him. Committed to the betterment of the polity, eager to foster a substantive and meaningful debate, wanting nothing more than to play their role in the pageant of democracy, they strive to live up to the legacy bequeathed by our nation's founders, who understood so deeply the importance of the profession of journalism that they wrote an explicit protection for its practitioners into the Bill of Rights.
Yet all the reporters' good intentions come to naught. The siren song of The Haircut is too beguiling, sapping their will, rendering them powerless before its irresistible pull. Their fingers betray them, tapping out yet another article on The Haircut on their laptops, while bitter tears of regret splash onto the keys.
But let's give credit where it's due. Solomon didn't just write one more derivative article on The Haircut. He employed all his skills as an "investigative reporter," snagging an exclusive interview with the guy who cut Edwards' hair. He delved deep, plumbing the depths of the stylist's feelings about Edwards, and meticulously cataloguing the price of each haircut administered. It is fair to say that no reporter has gone further, or revealed more about the moment when scissors met locks and what it all meant.
Alert the Pulitzer committee.
This piece was unusual for Solomon, since it had no need to rely on innuendo and breathless insinuations of wrongdoing. That was not the case with his prior exposés of cases in which Harry Reid did not actually do something fishy in a land deal in Nevada; Nancy Pelosi did not actually do something fishy with an earmark for San Francisco; Bill and Hillary Clinton did not actually do something fishy in setting up a charitable foundation; John Edwards did not actually do something fishy in selling his house -- each one placed before the Post's readers fairly reeking of corruption and untoward influence. In no case was Solomon able to prove what he implied the Democrats were up to, but we've gotten well used to that.
You don't have to be a professor of semiotics to understand what The Haircut is supposed to represent. It was seized upon with such glee by the press corps because it brings together two key stories that its members never tire of telling about Democrats. By sheer coincidence, they also happen to be the two portraits Republicans have painted of their opponents with such smashing success before, and are planning to paint again.
The first story is this: Democrats are phony. They pretend they're regular people when they're really not, reporters tell us. They pretend they care about poor people, when they couldn't possibly, if they themselves are not poor. (The Republican presidential candidates, on the other hand, are rich and evince no particular interest in helping people who aren't, which seems to be what the press considers the appropriate stance to adopt.)
John Edwards is certainly rich. How rich? So rich that when he gets a haircut, he doesn't care what it costs. And not only that, he has a big house. As a point of comparison, Mitt Romney is much richer than John Edwards. I have no idea how big his houses are (he has at least three -- one in Massachusetts, one in New Hampshire, and one in Utah -- to Edwards' one), and neither does anyone else, because reporters haven't been interested enough to write stories about them.
But in the eyes of the press, if a rich guy spends a lot of time talking about ways to end poverty, he must be a "hypocrite," as though he were actually advocating not that poverty should be eradicated, but that everyone should be poor.
So the rich Democrat who cares about poverty is a phony, while the rich Republicans who don't -- well, no problem there. As Carl Cameron of Fox News said in 2004 while emphasizing John Kerry's troubles connecting with regular, honest-to-goodness all-American folk, "The problem for Kerry may be who he is: an Ivy League millionaire, who has rubbed elbows with the world's wealthiest sophisticates, while most of rural America is considered Bush country. Close your eyes and Kerry's praise for the heartland and its voters sounds a lot like something President Bush might say." [Special Report, July 3, 2004] Let's see: "an Ivy League millionaire, who has rubbed elbows with the world's wealthiest sophisticates" -- was there anyone else running in that race to whom that would apply?
But no matter: Bush was an ordinary guy, the kind of fella you'd like to share a beer with, more at home at a backyard barbeque than with those snooty elitists with their wealth and power. In short -- unlike his two opponents -- Bush was real.
And wouldn't you know it? The Republicans running this year are real, too.
John McCain? Newsweek tells us that if he seems blue on the campaign trail, "[i]t may be because at heart, he is not a politician. He is a warrior," while his every utterance is lauded as "straight talk."
Rudy Giuliani? He's "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it," someone who has "street cred" when it comes to "protect[ing] this country against the bad guys," says Chris Matthews.
Fred Thompson? He's "the pickup-driving former senator and 'Law & Order' star," says The Washington Post -- never mind that the truck was a campaign prop.
Which brings us to the second story The Haircut tells: Democrats are effeminate. Who cares about their hair? Women, of course, and if a man gets a good haircut, he must not be much of a man. And it isn't just Edwards who suffers from these attacks, as Kerry and Al Gore did before him. Tucker Carlson, testosterone oozing from his pores, muscles rippling under his bespoke suit, declared that Barack Obama "seems like kind of a wuss."
The flip side of this story, of course is that Republicans are manly. Tune into a story about the 2008 race and chances are you'll hear what strong, masculine men the Republicans are. Chris Matthews wonders how easily Rudy Giuliani would kick Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ass in a street fight. Roger Simon of The Politico says admiringly that Mitt Romney "has shoulders you could land a 737 on," while Newsweek calls him "buff and handsome."
"Can you smell the English Leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved?" asked Chris Matthews about Fred Thompson. "Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever."
Whatever, indeed. If it wasn't a haircut, it would have been something else. And it will be something else; with 16 months before the next president is chosen, there will be more stories that, reporters and analysts will assure us, show just how phony and effeminate Democrats are, and how authentic and masculine Republicans are.
Like John Solomon, political reporters pretend that these stories just happen, that they are delivered on a set of stone tablets by some assignment editor in the sky whose orders cannot be questioned.
Republicans claim Al Gore said he invented the Internet? Well, who cares if it's a lie? It's "out there," so reporters have no choice but to repeat it and repeat it until it becomes the essence of the public's view of the man, a vivid distillation of what all reporters dislike about him. Republicans say John Kerry "looks French"? Ha ha, what a witty barb! We'll make sure to mention it in story after story. John Edwards got an expensive haircut?
That certainly is worthy of extended discussion, rumination, and analysis, and once every ounce of blood is squeezed from the stone, we'll just keep it around to bash him over the head with, lest he begin to think for a moment that he can convince anyone he's anything but a fraud and a girly-boy.
But there is no assignment editor in the sky. Stories don't just "happen"; they are the product of choices made by journalists. When a campaign comes to a reporter with a juicy piece of opposition research, the journalist makes a decision to write about it, or not. When a flack makes a vicious attack on his candidate's opponent, reporters choose to repeat it. John Solomon chose to write about John Edwards' hair, and not his health care plan. There's nothing stopping them from writing about issues, or even writing about the day-to-day progression of the campaign in a way that doesn't turn them into handmaidens of one side's crusade of defamation and distraction. Journalists have to make decisions every day. Is it too much to ask that they make the right ones?
I would take the time to worry about all this, but I have an appointment for a manicure right after my rinse and curl.
When Tucker Carlson was asked about HIS hair, he said he gets it cut for FREE. His wife's stylist comes by the house to do it gratis, and he's a great guy.
Carlson sees this as a CONTRAST between elitist rich Democrats like Edwards, and salt-of-the earth conservatives like himself.
He may be right, but not the way he thinks.
Edwards, WHATEVER he pays for his haircuts, is contributing to the economy, helping pay a wage, and rewarding WORK.
Carlson, on the other hand, adds NOTHING to the economy, stiffs the guy who works on his unruly mop, and defines the stylist's efforts as "worthless" by not paying for it.
In a sane world, Edwards would be considered a real friend of the working person, while Carlson would be viewed as a wealthy elitist who feels entitled to services without paying, and who has contempt for people who actually work for a living.
Somehow, though, in Carlson's mind, it is Edwards who is the phony hypocrite, while Carlson himself is representative of how real men ought to conduct business. Barfola.
Yes, John, there are 2 Americas. Both you and your values belong to an America that most of us would have trouble recognizing - with $1250 haircuts, $50 000 speeches on poverty, and investment in a leading subprime mortgage lender in the country. Do you have other advice on eradicating poverty, John? If you were really serious, you would have gotten a $100 haircut and donated the rest of the money to a needy family.
We might not much affect poverty in a financial sense, but we could begin to eradicate poverty of thought - say, starting with your very own posting.
To put a fine point on it, that attack on Edwards was worthy of a slow three-year-old, and should serve as a bad example for the rest of us, in perpetuity.
Liberalism 101: Democrats are never at fault.
John Edwards' $1250 haircut isn't the problem.
Edwards demanding and getting $50,000 for a speech on poverty isn't the problem.
The problem is that the media report such things. And to the truly stupid people out there, the media reporting something as politically dense as a $1250 haircut is proof the media aren't liberal. Morons.
(I hope you're all enjoying the 75 hours of global warming hysteria presented without balance by NBC's networks today/tonight...the musicians who care so very much more than you do flew a total of 222,623 miles in their private jets to get to these concerts)
The problem is with morons who fear the inevitable shake-up of the economic status quo that President Edwards will bring to bear on the market fundies.
Republicans should be afraid of Edwards. When he speaks to the working man he speaks as a working man. Communicating experiential knowledge is best way to persuade people, Republicans know this and Edwards speaks from experience.
Republicans understand very well the probability of their ideologic extinction should an economic populist ever reside again in the White House. It's coming, too. Republicans have nothing left in the tank.
When he speaks to the working man he speaks as a working man...an economic populist.
Edwards pretends to talk to dead fetuses in court to convince dim jurors to give he and his clients millions of dollars.
He pays $400 to $1250 for a haircut.
I suppose you failed to mention that so that no one would laugh when you called him a "working man" and a "populist".
Edwards' candidacy died the moment he said the war on terror is just a bumper sticker. He just has nothing else to do.
I wonder if Mr. Edwards read this:
no big deal, it's just a bumper sticker...
Sure was a cracking good rhetorical manuever by the Republicans to start referring to Iraq as Al Qaeda. They had no choice though, since Edwards shed the light of truth on the sick justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq that was the Republican war on a noun.
John Edwards did not say the war on terror was a bumper sticker. He said that Bush and his administration are using the war like a bumper sticker.
Edwards won't bring anything because he's unelectable. i'd vote for Kusinich before Edwards. At least Dennis isn't a phony.
Then don't bother wasting time telling us about it. Might as well just skip to the Clinton inauguration, eh? No campaign, no vote needed? Right? Just let Shrub Jr. bequeth the office to his successor.
RESPONSES to MAX:
MAXsez: "John Edwards' $1250 haircut isn't the problem."
RESPONSE: Exactly. WHY would it be a problem? HOW could it be a problem? He made a cost-benefit analysis (as we all do every day), decided it was WORTH it to him, he could easily afford it, so what's the big deal?
MAXsez: "Edwards demanding and getting $50,000 for a speech on poverty isn't the problem."
RESPONSE: No, that certainly IS NOT a problem.
Two things here: FIRST, one can DEMAND all one wants, but until one finds another party willing to PAY what is demanded, there is no transaction. If the "demand" is met, that's called the MARKET ECONOMY of supply and demand. Since when are rightwingers critical of making a buck?
SECOND, that the speech was on the topic of poverty is meaningless, in that Edwards is not yet in a position to change the dynamics in the system to set about dealing with the problem of poverty. There is absolutely no reason for Edwards to "unilaterally disarm" in the fundraising needed for a presidential run, because there is still a problem with poverty. I mean, because there's poverty, nobody should be able to make any money? That's just insane. Or is it just DEMOCRATS who can't make money? That's PARTISAN insanity.
MAXsez: "The problem is that the media report such things."
RESPONSE: No, the PROBLEM is that the Rightwing Media report "these things" as examples of all manner of horrid and bad things about Edwards' "character", and that's smearmongering and baseless propaganda.
The PROBLEM is ALSO that the Rightwing Media report "these things" as if they are important, while IGNORING a myriad of issues that are of dire importance to Americans, but which reflect badly on the GOP (for example, GOPers jumping ship on Bush, declaring they are no longer WITH Bush in support of the Iraq war).
MAXsez: "And to the truly stupid people out there, the media reporting something as politically dense as a $1250 haircut is proof the media aren't liberal. Morons."
RESPONSE: The American people now GET that the Rightwing Media is constantly trying to fool them, and also GET that the Rightwing Media is downplaying important stories which might damage the GOP in order to report unimportant smears to try to damage Democrats. Calling the American People insulting names does not make your point, or qualify as a rebuttal; it only shows you have nothing else.
MAXsez: "I hope you're all enjoying the 75 hours of global warming hysteria presented without balance by NBC's networks today/tonight...the musicians who care so very much more than you do flew a total of 222,623 miles in their private jets to get to these concerts."
RESPONSE: Again, what you see as "hypocricy" is NOT. We operate in this world AS IT IS, and attempt to bring about change for the good. Maybe someday soon, there will be much more efficient means of transportation brought about by the protests TODAY, being effective, and changing the way the world does business. Until that time, we all must operate within the world the WAY IT IS. To refuse to do so would be tantamount to UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT, allowing the enemies of the environment to take full advantage of the system to promote THEIR views, while refusing to do battle in the same arena. That would be a foolish gesture and would cripple the impact of the message.
Put another way, if the raised awareness in the world propts us to take energy conservation and alternative forms of energy seriously, and the world CHANGES how it does business, the amount of gas needed to transport the protesting bands or Al Gore around to deliver the message will be infinitessimal and inconsequential. Drop in the ocean, and for an enormously good cause.
MAX, you epitomize the rightwing Talking Point. Thanks for being a foil.
They didn't 'report' the Haircut, they report and report and report the haircut. Your post is particularly bizarre considering Bush and the right's claim that the problem with carnage in Iraq isn't carnage in Iraq but rather coverage of the carnage in Iraq. I guarantee Edward's haircut will ultimately get MANY times as much coverage as say the 150 people just blown up in an attack. You say the most hypocritical thing imagineable while accusing 'liberals' of hypocricy. I swear a prerequisite for being a right-wing too is a complete lack of understanding of irony.
That's right-wing tool. Sorry, my editors missed that.
$1250? I could have sworn it said $400. Please give the web address of the ground-breaking article that reveals the true depths of Edwards' depravity.
What fantastic logic you have
He gave that money to a working-class family, didn't he? This hairdresser wasn't a Yale legacy, by any chance? Being generous with a small businessman whose work you like is putting money back into the system in a good way.
Genghiz...
My little right-winger.
You condemn John Edwards forr his $50,000 speeches. (For which admission was charged which covered most of his fee.)
Giuliani got much more than $50,000 for his little speeches. But you wouldn't want to say a word about this would you?...Did Rush forget to tell you about Giuliani's fees?
Oh, never mind.
It's not the money for speeches that's in issue...at least not for me. Edards is entitled to ask for and receive as a big a speaking fee as he can get. That's the market economy.
It's the "topic" that makes it hypocritical. Charging 50k for a speech on poverty and "two americas" and paying $1250 for haircuts just make your words ring hollow. I'd say the same thing about Giulianni if he was doing it, or anyone else for that matter.
And who cares about Edwards anyway? He's done. He has zero chance of being elected.
I would agree with you on just about everything, but it has been pointed out here before that a very large chunk of Edwards' income goes to charity.
I do agree that Edwards doesn't have a shot at all and the haircut he paid for was ridiculously extravagant in contrast to his message.
However, this haircut story is an invention of the right wing. They somehow (illegal spying maybe?) obtained information about his expenses and blew it up. This shows they don't want to debate him about policy.
Again, how much are the other candidates spending in hotels for services? A comparison chart? Come on, this whole thing is bogus.
Exactly so, Mary59.
Several years ago Tucker Carlson admitted on air that he wears a toupee. Someone e-mailed him the question of whether it was true or not, and he said it was.
So is he lying about his "stylist?"
Im with you on this one. This may be the real reason Carlson doesn't pay for his haircuts. He wears a rug. And why not? Everything else about the man is phony. While we're on the subject Hannity's hair is not all that convincing either. And O'Reilly, we all knowl he uses the money he saves on haircuts to purchase luffas. The luffa in the link is from an ad in the Paris Business Review.
Well, maybe that explains why his hair looks so bad. Some passive-aggressiveness going on here. Maybe the stylist wasn't really so agreeable to the gratis deal after all.
Okay, then here's a suggestion (and yes I'm serious): Shave your head down to a crew cut. Make a statement that you are tired of people talking about your hair all the time and just shave it off. Frankly, I don't think Edwards would do it, because his hair is too important to him, which is part of the reason that such criticisms build momentum. He could also just come out and say that his hair is very important to him and he wants it to look nice. Democrats constantly lose elections on these kind of attacks and they just sit there and ignore the attacks or play victim, rather than just addressing them. It's sad that such criticisms are part of the dialog of a national election, but that's the level that this country has sunk to. Sometimes you have to get in the mud with the pigs.
I'm pretty sure we could talk Edwards into shaving his head - just as soon as all the Repugnants renounce their sins, and their unearned wealth.
(Edwards did start from scratch, no family wealth to bail him out, and earned every penny of his by forcing Corporations - and some Doctors - to pay for negligence and error.) We'd probably have to let Fred keep his Law & Order paychecks.
I think an e-mail campaign is in order. What does Edwards have to lose, anyway? He's behind in the polls and the very fact that he isn't addressing this issue is hurting him. Shave it off, Edwards!
Edwards shave his head? I can just see the headlines now...
"Wussy John Edwards couldn't even take a little criticism about his hair, so how is he going to deal with threats like Al Qaeda?"
"John Edwards tried to shave his head to show what a regular guy he is, but didn't it really just expose him for the rich, pandering phony that we all know he is?"
"Later, Carl Cameron will have an expose' about how that wealthy hypocrite John Edwards actually used a $700 set of hair clippers to shave his head, proving once again he's not an average joe like all those tough, manly Republican candidates."
"Later on Good Morning America, we'll have on our expert political commentators Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter on to once again call John Edwards a f*g."
"unearned wealth. "
So the wealthy don't earn their money? Interesting.
So then you are arguing BOTH that welfare CAUSES dependency AND that most people DONT become dependent on it? Also the fact they get a job is NOT proof they are out of poverty.
http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/2005/07/
Over the last 30 years, the number of jobs that do not pay a living wage has increased dramatically. In the U.S., as many as 25 percent of all jobs pay less than a poverty-level income, the report says. In some states, as many as 30 percent do not pay a living wage. A living wage takes into account differences in the cost of living across areas of the U.S. In many communities, the national minimum wage of $5.15 per hour provides an income insufficient to support individuals or families,
But 7 million of them are men and women who are working at jobs that do not pay a wage they can live on. A majority of working poor are over age 24 and in their wage-earning period of life.”
So it isnt that I made your point for you. Its just that you PRETENDED that the set of people on welfare ARE the same as the set of people who live in poverty. They are not so this does NOT support your contention that people only live in poverty for a short while. A neat trick just pretend that one thing is identical with another even when that is transparently ludicrous. Feel free to ignore me whenever you get tired of me shredding your weak arguments. In fact respond dont respond, dress up like Ann Coulter and scare small children I couldnt possibly care less. I respond to whatever posts it amuses me to respond to. I suggest you do the same thing.
Sure just define terms to suit your argument and then pretend you win an argument that you were shown to be factually incorrect about. That might fool somebody, somewhere. The depression started Oct 29 1929. It ended in 33 when Roosevelt was elected and made some bold economic moves. There was another recession in 37, unemployment remained high. Define it how you want but your claim was that Roosevelt was responsible for NOTHING and WW2 is what got us out of the depression. Since even YOU are now admitting that the depression that begain with the stock market crash ended in 33 that is a pretty good sign that it wasnt WW2 that did it all which of course was the EXACT point I made. You do know that you arent very good at this dont you? I mean for all your condescension you are being spanked here your delusions notwithstanding.
What does it matter who agrees with him? It is obvious at this point you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You base your whole definition of the depression on unemployment data and completely ignore GDP, which is the most common indicator used to measure the economy and whether there is a prolonged recession (depression) or not.
You cannot be this dense.
I answered three different posts moron. Learn to read. Unemployment isnt the ONLY applicable stat and I DO think that a 50% rise in the GDP in four years is pretty good.
Considering the fact that most economists would consider the depression technically over after steady positive GDP growth, that happened in 1933, Solon's statement is accurate and you are merely arguing from assertion.
You write a lot of words without saying anything at all.
If you are too dense to comprehend this, then keep replying. I am tired of repeating this at this point and I doubt any further repetition can possibly penetrate your willfully ignorant skull.
No wax job this time?
No time. I still have to tan, and then buff my elbows. Where the hell is my lilac lotion?
Why don't the Republicans just cut the rhetoric and dress their guy in a leather vest with his hairy chest showing and make him smell like piss.
When he is asked a question throw him a turkey leg and watch him devour it. That will be his answer to all issues.
Then you can have him wrestle with another guy who also wears a black leather vest and shows a hairy chest. The two can then get real manly. Note: this part of the film will require adult id.
Your manly man can win 2008.
Hey it's better than wearing a suit or looking like the guy who goes and gets the coffee such as President Cheney who wears the suit and Vice President Bush who gets Cheney's coffee for him.
Harlequin, funny stuff,I hope you're not working for the GOP.Those are some winners!
I think the leather and wrestling details really walk that very fine line between ultra-macho and gay stereotypes that would appeal to a lot of the heartland and Christian Right, whether as camp or appealing to their subconscious cravings.
Harlequin, did you type your post between bong hits?
;-)
Maybe Edwards ought to shoot someone in the face, too.
"Journalists have to make decisions every day. Is it too much to ask that they make the right ones?"
Apparently it is. Great points in this article. So what john Edwards can afford expensive haircuts. He EARNED that right. But yet.. he does care about the "two" Americas and has been actively promoting policies to bridge the gaps, and find ways that allow many more Americans to afford expensive haircuts.
Why isn't this Post bozo covering what Bush Jr. promised New Orleans and the gulf coast devastated by the hurricane he's such a manly man.
Maybe some journalist can finally find the proof one way or the other that he actually showed up for his full National Guard service even if he lost his right to fly- while his contemporaries including fellow "ivy league" educated John Kerry were fighting a war in Viet Nam?
John Edwards seeks eloquently of how he was able to live the American dream thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of his parents, he wants that for every American.
Bush Jr. and the manly men- well I guess Jr. can speak to how his daddy bailed him out of numerous business deals gone bad. Good thing they had all that "blue blood" connections. Even got him elected Governor and look at him now.
Uh huh. The haircut is yet another symptom of the lazy press, interested in who will butter their bread, and not so much in reporting.
I don't think e-mails and phone calls to the these newspapers do any good. Making fun of a haircut is childish and stupid but also more incedious than an outright lie.
Challenge the lies...even PROVE them...doesn't make a difference...
It's the liars and stooges of yesteryear that are the big boys in news today. To publicly shame someone the public must first have standards and care that they are being lied to or manipulated.
You can't tell a reporter that he is failing in his duty anymore than you can tell a cop who is beating you that he is betraying your trust. It is stating the obvious. These reporters know exactly what they are doing.
Yeah they know what they're doing: Sucker-punching your brain which somehow gets you to watch them, and then taking your money for cable TV payment every month and spending it on their peck o'dillos ... maybe that's spelled with an 'E' on the End. Per Dumb Quayle, couch potatoe. Unless that's Quayl.
What is fun to not watch is the uninvestigation which is not going on, tracing the Washington, DC, prostitution ring Madam's records listing the prostitution customers' phone numbers which include some ABC/Disney reporters and exec's and an awful lot of other massmind media celebrity and unknown names ... as being reported by Wayne Madsen at Wayne Madsen Report (dot)COM, [subscription req'd, cheap! worth it! vital! ], from Deep Inside the Washington Beltway, emphasis on deep.
Here is a full-flavored taste of Madsen, (what he reports, he can substantiate, no lawsuits have ever been filed against him for false slander, libel, etc.; always only no-comment silence from his exposed targets) ... Madsen, who emulates Jack Anderson, when any 'working journo' should care to look and see what an honest and good investigative reporter does and is.
If these pundits and journalists were really manly men themselves, they wouldn't be afraid of the status quo. They would have the cajones to push back against the gossipy, smearmongering narrative driven by TPTB. These guys are mice, not men. They go along to get along and haven't a true brave bone anywhere in their soft, squishy bods.
"Journalists have to make decisions every day. Is it too much to ask that they make the right ones?"
None of the examples cited actually even remind me of a journalist. Were any of them so, we would have heard the truth about Bungle in 1998, when the Repugnant wing of the Republicans began beating the drum for his ascension. Were any of them so, we would have heard the truth in 2000, when Bungle was enthroned by fraud. Were any of them so, we would have heard reverberations of the questions put to Bungle in the run-up to his and Darth's illegal invasion of Iraq. Were any of them so, Kerry would in fact be running for his second term, if they had begun the questions too late to secure Gore's inauguration.
So, in answer to the question: if one speaks purely of journalists, "No, it is quite all right to ask - even insist - that they make the right ones." Be careful, though: there are few indeed of that persuasion out there in media-land; and even asking most of those media creatures is somewhat like bleeding on the corpse of the vampyre.
Without a doubt, one of the best lines I've read (in article or comment) on this website: "Tucker Carlson, testosterone oozing from his pores, muscles rippling under his bespoke suit, declared that Barack Obama "seems like kind of a wuss.""
To John Edwards,
I'll meet you whenever you like with a pair of clippers and shave your head for you. Then the freakin media can get off your freakin haircut and talk about the issues.
Shave it off! Force them to change the subject.
I think it would work. How about the rest of you?
Bill
I've got a MUCH better idea. At his next public appearrance, Edwards should show up sporting Mitt Romney's haircut.
Make a joke out of it.
I think SteveExPat and bwierenga have teamed up to solve the problem of our pathetic media, with the shaving the head suggestions.
Anything that is threatening to the GOP or distracting the media should just be eliminated.
Hillary's voice is annoying? Well, if she'd just have her vocal chords surgically removed, there wouldn't be any criticism.She's got to take some responsibility.
Don't know enough about Obama? (read: can't find enough dirt) Barack only has to write a lengthy public confessional detailing every bad thing he's ever done, and if he's led a pretty decent life, he just needs to go out and commit some crimes.Quit blaming the media.
Edwards is a phony? Forget shaving the head, phoniness goes to his very existence.If Edwards simply killed himself,leaving a flesh-and-blood corpse, the media would have to recognize that he's genuine.
And all this time, I thought the media was to blame for their preoccupation with BS, when really it was the fault of everybody else for not adjusting the universe to make them and their corporate sponsors comfortable.
Next week, we'll be solving the problem of robbery by demanding nobody owns anything, and eliminating rape by outlawing short skirts.
The far lefties like Steveexpat
Sound amazingly like right wing bats
Throw redking in the stew
And you have quite a brew
Of annoying green party gnats
The Coprporate/Repugnant Media would simply do to Edwards what they did to Britney. There is no escape from those creatures, save to destroy the offspring of that maloderous union of Ray-Gun's FCC and the Corporate Media. Restore some balance and diversity and access via MORA, even though the attacks on the Fairness Doctrine are getting a lot of play in that media. So scotch the FD and focus on cutting the 1980 limits on ownership and reach by half; the divestitures will bring the very diversity and access we require if we are to be served by our media, rather than simply fattening the Corporate coffers. Rep. Hinchey could use some supportive emails, and some suggestions regarding dealing with the recent opposition to the Fairness Doctrine.
The poor, the poor, who gives a crap about the poor....I am poor and the reason I am is I am lazy, don't want to work and I prefer to do....this....instead. (Paranoid Progressives think I am lying) Edwards is NOT going to be president so who cares about his hair cuts, he is a multimillionaire and that is what they do.......I just got a hair cut for free from myself....I shaved my head! Now I uglier than ever. What I want to know is what is Mr Edwards plan for.......ME! I cant wait to find out how I am going to make myself wealthier.
It's truly sad that you seem to base your entire view of poverty on the cariciture that all poor people are just lazy, good-for-nothing layabouts. Get a clue, man. The system is rigged to benefit the rich, and it's people like you who aid and abet them.
The system is rigged to benefit the hard-working and the disciplined. Sure it's easier to make money with money but give a lazy undisciplined man millions and I'll show you a broke loser before too long.
Funny thing, when I waited tables and partied every night I didn't have a pot to piss in. No discipline. No priorities.
When I got into sales and cut my partying way back, miraculously I started to get ahead. Go figure.
"...give a lazy undisciplined man millions and I'll show you a broke loser before too long." --lolo
How do you explain George W. Bush's success within that context?
; )
Don't be so hard on yourself. You aren't poor because you are lazy. It is obviously because you are stupid.
I just found out how Mr. Edwards is going to help me, he is going to take more of your money, launder it through a government program, at the cost of 40 cents on the dollar, then give it to me...YAAAAAY! I just got my new Hoveround delivered by UPS this morning, thanks all, I think I will sell it at my neighbors yard sale. Get me a few gallons of gas for the old truck, couple packs of smokes and a case of beer........sa sa sa seeya.
That money laundering is quite a novel approach, but since the most recent person charged with money laundering is Republican Tom Delay, the joke has no legs.
Who in the world gives a crap about Tom Delay?
tweakthetroll,are you authorized to post Halliburton's memos?
I only wish I had the income the health care benefits and the retirement of a low level Haliberton employee but that would require me to work. It is easer to receive my health care from my state, for $10 per month co-pay, which I get off of my food stamp card by selling food to my neighbor for 60 cents on the dollar, I receive the same care at Kaiser Permenente as every one else. The only draw back to my life style......I have no money.
You don't need to work. All you need is an illegal war, a no bid contract, a corporate mole such as President Cheney, cronyism and bingo corporate welfare at the tune of 1.5 trillion dollars.
Harley, there is nothing you can do about that which you loath. Thats what is so funny about you rich people, "hair" and "looks" are a big deal. What other rich people do is a big deal. To hate is to feel good? I had an old girl friend that was not happy unless she had a problem to focus her hate on. Got a polo pony? Then ride that bad boy. Do the world a favor, convince Muslims to stop killing people and Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and all that you hate will be of no consequence any longer. Harry and Nancy are running the show in DC are they not?
Keep talking to yourself, troll. Nobody gives a crap about you being poor in spirit and intellect.
John Edwards said he cares about me, I just might vote for him. Really hate to see Bush go though. Those mean Republicans taked Bill Clinton into cutting welfare and W has expanded the progams to help to us poor people 5 fold. My new Hoveround works great, just charged it up, think I will see if it can do a wheelie before I sell it.
maybe your girlfriend just thought you were a jerk.
No, I had to run her off, you see she had just one kid, my new girl friend had 4 kids, alot more welfare money with 4 than 1. I gave her a choice, she could stay to if she wanted, chose not to, dont know why.
You "gave" her the choice. What a guy.
This is all like whining to the teacher. But there is no god damn teacher. Be specific. Get every bit of information on the budget for primping and styling for every candidate, and put it out there. Stat!
This could be one short paragraph and a chart. Instead we get an annotated sermon. We're the choir we don't matter!
It's funny you should mention John shaving his head...
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Hey, the guy even looks good bald. I guess they'll next concentrate on his twinkling blue eyes and nice smile. The next rumor is that he pays dentist bills so his teeth won't rot. Or that he uses a whitener. Maybe he has blue contacts. Or what about his skin. It's much too nice. Maybe he gets facials or eats nutritiously. Bad, bad man.
Ah Julia you & the other Liberals here sound just a tad worked up.
Personally I couldn't care less what John-Boy paid for his haircut [though I swear a $50 one would have sufficed], but what I do find interesting is why more of you Dems are not backing this guys bid for the Presidency. Seems to me he speaks more for the Libs than even Clinton or Obama. He has that handsome Kennedyesque look about him, and could easily be compared to Robert Kennedy in style & substance.
So what's the deal? Edwards should be running away with the nomination...
And you should all be on board.
I'm on board but not for the shallow reasons enumerated in your post.
He has the best healthcare plan. His plan enables real market competition by giving everybody the option to choose between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare. There's more to the plan, much more but essentially he has laid down the gauntlet for the private sector to get serious about the nation's health.
The key point of his plan to eliminate poverty harkens back to FDR's public works initiative. In coordination with local business and governments temporary stepping stone jobs would be created, in the interest of the common good, for impoverished citizens who demonstrate the initiative to hold a steady job.
There's more to his campaign than a stupid haircut, but I digress.
Edwards hasn't raised the money that Clinton and Obama have, but he also isn't cozy with Rupert Murdoch and Steven Spielberg (sp?).
He is garnering grassroots support. Ten dollars here, twenty dollars there. It remains to be seen how effective his efforts will be. I agree, though, he should be running away with the nomination.
I'm on board but not for the shallow reasons enumerated in your post.
Now now Roundhouse I did write:
Seems to me he speaks more for the Libs than even Clinton or Obama.
And comparing him to RFK is shallow? Well okie dokie then.
Yeah, I know. The post wasn't thoroughly patronizing.
To clear up any potential misunderstanding, perhaps my response should have read, "Yeah, I know. Your post wasn't thoroughly patronizing."
How was my post patronizing at all?
Seriously, I'm not seeing that.
I wish he was running away with the nomination because he'd get trounced by any candidate the right threw at him.
He's got a good healthcare plan? Right. Because medicare and medicaid are excellent.
Got a friend on medicaid who was just in the hospital for 3 days. @0k bill. Wonder who ends up paying for that? I wonder why he doesn't have insurance? Wait, I know...maybe it's because he's 25, has no degree, works through a temp agency (sporadically i might add) ata an unskilled job any monkey could do.
He's my boy and I love him but facts are facts. He "chooses" to be uninsured and he's not alone.
Should have said 20 thousand.
Any candidate the right tosses out?
The Republicans could reanimate Reagan himself, run him and still couldn't convince anyone but the radical right-wing authoritarians to vote Republican.
Face it, Republicans blew it. Republicans had it all and they screwed the pooch.
They turned their backs on the middle class and ceded their fundamental responsibility to promote the general welfare to the money hungry fatcats of the private sector. We are losing the middle class under the weight of the Republican winner takes all economy. In the absence of a shared risk and shared reward safety net, the risk of failure in the market leads to ruin and effectively bars the doors to market participation.
In the absence of healthcare coverage for all, a catastrophic illness is the leading cause of destitution in this country. That must change. Healthy living is a sacred right for all Americans, were it not a right, we would have no need for safe food and safe water standards.
But if Edwards' idea of allowing the private sector to compete with the public sector frightens you, then don't deign to lecture me about the righteousness of the 'free' market.
He has that handsome Kennedyesque look about him, and could easily be compared to Robert Kennedy in style & substance.- jeter2
Sorry Jeter but as a liberal, for looks, Obama got 1st place -:)
I vote for Obama too, He is wicked handsome.
Pearlene,
Yes Obama is a good-looking guy as well, and of course has been described as Kennedyesque by many.
It seems to me that Democrats are always looking for the next JFK or RFK, while Republicans search for the next Reagan.
Now before any of you make disparaging remarks about Ronald Reagan, I'm not here to debate his worth, good or bad. Just making an observation....
Here's another, (paid) ticket in hand, waving to you from the caboose.
I do believe that the large donors are a tad unhappy with how Edwards made his money, (I love that he stuck it to negligent Corporations, and am neutral as to the doctors), wary of the sense that he may want more than merely a freeze-frame on the use of government to enrich the wealthy (particularly the "Death" tax - tax estates at 100% over $5m), his support for unions and the workers they represent (oh no - some of "my" workers might insist on even more than minimum wage), and even the fact that he has a well-developed plan for universal health-care (there go the doctors and the pharms, again). Plus, there is this Corporate Media monster out there pushing the haircuts and other perceived negatives in every 'cast, 24/7.
Worked up, Jeter? That's a bit of projection. Sorry to disappoint you.
Really Julia?
Did you read some of the posts here?
I'd say several posters got a tad worked up...
Me projecting? Ah that's rich.
Seems to me my posts on this thread are among the most placid & cool-headed of the bunch...including yours ;-)
Usually it is the person projecting that sees other people being the thing they themselves are. But if you see yourself as calm, then who am I to say otherwise.
I think I'll let my posts speak for themselves :-)
Well time to go throw some thick steakhouse pork chops on the grill [these are so awesome!] Yum...
Catch ya later JJ
Oakie dokie. Just return the favor (letting our posts speak for themselves), and we'll get along fine. Happy eating. :).
AMEN to the conclusion about American Journalists...
or to use a word from my new calling: RAmen!
But either way I think everyone gets my point.
Why does one have to be poor to be a populist? Why does one have to be poor to care about policies that might help the poor? FDR probably did the most of all of our recent presidents to help the poor. He was NOT a poor man.
If we want to talk about people who do not do as they say let's line up Bush, Cheney, rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. Did they ever go to battle? No. Then why are we not up in arms about that?
"I suppose you failed to mention that so that no one would laugh when you called him a "working man" and a "populist". "
Max:
We're all laughing at commander codpiece Bush who never saw a day of battle. I guess that explains the fiasco in Iraq.
Go to the Washington Post website and look up this article, and click on "view all comments". The locals of Washington DC rip Solomon a new one about how irrelevant he is. As soon as I saw the article, I was hoping that Media Matters would catch this one. It's a waste of paper and ink.
I completely agree with this article. It was said so well, I don't need to reiterate it. However, I want to express my frustration that I submitted a letter to the editor at the Washington Post about this exact topic and although they contacted me saying they were "considering it for publication" it never showed up. I guess it's important enough to highlight what Edwards's stylist has to say about the haircuts but not important enough to publish their readers' thoughts about the article itself.
"It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care."
only among fact-challenged, smear-loving Republicants...
Based on that photo, it's going to be a while before anyone writes about John Solomon's haircut...