On MSNBC, Crowley called Edwards a "metrosexual," "the prettiest one of the Democrats"
On the August 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC political analyst and nationally syndicated radio host Monica Crowley referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as "the metrosexual in the race" and said he is "the prettiest one of the Democrats." In response, co-host Mika Brzezinski said: "I think he and [Republican presidential candidate] Mitt Romney are taking a spa day."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here), media have repeatedly echoed conservatives' characterizations of Edwards as effeminate.
From the August 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, guest-hosted by MSNBC correspondent Willie Geist:
GEIST: I think, John Edwards -- we've been paying so much attention to [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] and [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] [D-NY] over the last couple of weeks -- he's got to be feeling a little left out here -- I mean, the third-place guy. Do you think he's going to take advantage tonight and try to -- maybe he engages Hillary, maybe he picks a fight with her?
CROWLEY: Yeah, the metrosexual in the race is really lagging. Not a lot of traction here for John Edwards, much to his surprise and chagrin, I think, because he's the prettiest one of the Democrats.
BRZEZINSKI: I think he and Mitt Romney are taking a spa day. Is --
GEIST: No. You know, why are you objectifying men? I hate when you do that.
CROWLEY: The one time!
BRZEZINSKI: The one time! Whatever -- I'm sorry.
GEIST: Talk about the issues.
CROWLEY: You know what? I think that John Edwards is trying to get headlines wherever he can and, a couple of days ago, he criticized News Corporation -- Rupert Murdoch's company -- and urged all Democrats to boycott everything News Corp., and to return money if they've got it from Rupert Murdoch, or any of his top executives.
And, look, I think at this point, even though Edwards is leading in Iowa, his lead there is slipping, and he's grasping at some straws here, which might make for some great fireworks tonight because he's got to try somehow to upstage both Hillary and Obama.
I'm not sure which the media suffers from the most: hypocrisy or ignorance. How else to explain their obsession with bashing democrats for wanting to be presentable, while praising Republicans based purely on looks. Only the modern media, who has sunk so unbelievably low, would see no problems with running a story bashing edwards for being "pretty" and follow it with a story on how masculine and man-musky Romney is.
They were for appearance before they were against it. They're flip floppers.
I'm not sure that is what went on here. I was watching this segment during my morning workout and it really didn't play that way. Crowley is a conservative pundit and she went for the typical dig calling Edwards a metrosexual (which isn't really an insult but that is besides the point). Mika Brezinski made the easy (yet untypical for her) joke about the candidate on the other side who's looks have been commented on. Frankley it was a throw away comment and lumped the two into the same joke...where do you see it calling Romney manly?
I took Rosencrantz's comment as a general observation, not entirely focused on this one example. The fact is, Romney has been repeatedly held up by the media as a rippling broad-shouldered example of man meat, while Edwards has been derided for being "pretty."
Crowley tells it like it is
Why does Romney want to be President? He gets his own planet in the afterlife to command...can't he just wait.
Exactly, and Beck is the perfect idiot to ask him.
Beck: "with all due respect Gov., I question your loyalty to this planet, since you will recieve your own celestial planet from God after you die"
Yeah, I was just making a generalization on the behaviour of the media. As for it being the comments of a political operative...well, I have issues with political PR people even being allowed on "news" programs in the first place. Why bother having someone on when you know exactly what they are going to do or say? But that's a different issue for a different day.
The point is the media desperately wants to keep this story alive and yet they see no hypocrisy between pushing this story line and yet also pushing the Romney "musky" line.
I am willing to give her the benefit of doubt. Crowley might have been referring to this Edwards campaign video: [link to www.youtube.com]
"He'll do anything to get headlines..." Push it, Candy...the whole election process is all just a quest for the beneficence of the Press, thaat is to say, her. They all are just prostrate before the Lords of the Meeedia. Thus a protest against the distorting power of the media is really (wink wink) a prostration to that same media. And in the meantime it amuses these lords to talk about haircuts and cleavage and horseraces and catfights.
John Edwards knows you're the enemy, Candy. And so do we.
I thought it was Monica Crowley, not Candy Crowley ?
More Republican operatives and pundits teasing John Edwards about his prettiness, and his supporters stomping up and down saying "STOP!"
The more Edarards' supporters give it any attention at all, the more his detractors will keep it up.
Whoa - Edwards', not Edarards'
Main Entry: metrosexualPart of Speech: n, adjDefinition: a heterosexual male who has a strong aesthetic sense and inordinate interest in appearance and style, similar to that of homosexual malesEtymology: 1994; blend of metropolitan + heterosexualUsage: informal
...Other words, He's the guy who spends an extra 5-10 mins to on things the astetically pragmatic/lazy disegard. Not a bad thing.
...mean to be posted under dem2020.
Noted, and appreciated.
I trust to Merriam-Webster exclusively, and so I just checked my source, and surprise!
Merriam-Webster does have an entry for 'metrosexual'.
And having seen the definition you found, and immediately thinking it queer, for equating an "aesthetic sense" (which I take to mean an appreciation for beautiful things) and an "inordinate interest in appearance and style" (which I take as being meaningless, especially by way of the word 'inordinate')...
Equating those things with homosexuality, I thought that to be a bit queer.
Merriam-Webster has no indication of homosexuality in their definition; just the opposite, they have "a usually urban heterosexual male", and then the part of the definition you provided, about appearance and style; M-W making the characteristics "fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes"...
Gee, all of this almost makes me forget we're talking about a presidential candidate.
I almost lost my focus, and my train of thought: National Policy, Foreign Policy, National Security, and Justice...
...I wonder if a person can have a sensible opinion on those matters, even an ability in them, should they hold an administrative or legislative Office, and at the same time
to be "fastidiously groomed"
and to have "beauty treatments"
and to wear "fashionable clothes"
...or would those things make an administrator of our Federal Government a bit queer?
Well anyway, glad to consider the matter a little (but not too much)... the word 'metrosexual' was queer to me, and it's hard to make sense of anything anybody says, when you don't even know what their words mean.
Hey, it just occurs to me: Is this "metrosexual" nonsense about Mr. Edwards, perhaps in any way a subtle dig at Mrs. Clinton?
I mean, were she to be elected our next president, wouldn't she also just naturally have the terrible habits of being "fastidiously groomed" and maybe scheduling the occasional "beauty treatment" and even wearing "fashionable clothes"?
If those are things that disqualify a candidate from our consideration, then not only is maybe Mr. Edwards out, but Mrs. Clinton too... isn't that a logical enough inference?
If that's the case, and those listed things are disqualifications from the presidency, then I don't think we'll be having a woman president anytime soon...
...unless she looks and dresses like Shirley Booth, in "Come Back, Little Sheba".
As opposed to your typical neo-conservative slack-jawed yahoo, who generally does not bathe on any day that ends with a "Y".
:-)
Apt!
Thank you for pointing this out. Metrosexual is NOT a slam... it suggests that a man cares about his appearance, is current with fashion trends and is generally well presented at all times. What the heck is wrong with that?
MMFA, quit whining. This isn't a story.
Right. Not a story. It has only become running narrative with the media and is brought up whenever they want to question Edwards priorities, values and sincerity for the issues he speaks of.
Stop trying to downplay what is clearly a smear and an attack. It's like when conservatives say, "what's wrong with being called a liberal is you ARE a proud liberal"...and then they endlessly use the word liberal as something dirty and out of touch and something the voters should be afraid of. It's not the word that is the problem, it's how it is being used as an attack. Why not just call Obama the N-word and then say you were just being "hip-hop" and if you take offense then you should blame the rappers. Or how about if a gay candidate was running and the right kept bringing up how he's gay and a homosexual with negative connotation. Should he just do nothing and say, "I AM gay!" It's not the word itself that is the issue but the connotations being associated with it.
I for one, am not saying "STOP!" per se.
I'm saying, "Is this all you people can talk about? Is this what matters?"
Exactly.
This is another example of people on the right saying that people on the left want to stifle free speech. We don't, as a rule, want to do that. We do want to point out offensive speech. We do want to put people who say offensive things on notice that their offensive comments are no longer ignored.
Tommy would have us ignore these comments.
Not gonna happen, Tommy. Wouldn't be prudent.
What we're doing is highlighting info that is not relevant or fair and that promotes the conservative agenda. I totally disagree with Tommy that highlighting those offensive comments helps conservatives and hurts Edwards, and that if we were smarter we would ignore them.
What's offensive about calling someone a metrosexual or pretty for that matter? In my opinion it is only a negative for those who think that should be an issue in who you vote for...and I may be making a sweeping generalization here but most who would vote for a democratic candidate don't really give a hoot if there pretty or not...the people who think this means something significant probably go republican anyway.
You forget the millions of casual viewers whom share no political affiliation. What are they to think of Edwards when all the hear is "phony" "$400 hair cuts" "pretty" "$400 hair cuts" "huge house" "$400 hair cuts" "pretty" "$400 hair cuts" "metrosexual" "$400 hair cuts" "breck girl(what does that mean??" "$400 hair cuts" Is this the precedent by which we as consumers of news media want election coverage to occur? A near 24hr loop of TMZ style tabloid politics? I want an in-depth analysis of each of the candidates platform, with intelligent opinionated dissection. What? You want cleavage and hair stories? Turn on TMZ, you get the same thing, with better looking people.
You are concerned with the "casual viewer"? And you think these "casual viewers" will sit still for two minutes for an in depth analysis of Edwards' campaign platform? I don't think so.
The people you are referring to, their "uninformed" voting habits cut both ways, both for and against candidates. The ones that will vote against Edwards because of his "prettiness", are mirrored by those who vote against Guiliani because he's Italian, or Romney because he's Mormon.
Nope you missed my point. I don't give two hoots about cleavage or haircuts...that's my point. I care about the issues and anyone who is going to vote based on cleavage and haircuts probably wasn't going to vote in those candidates anyway. I think it makes those who are highlighting these aspects as an important issue are the ones who come off looking foolish and flighty.
Considering the closeness of recent elections, I don't think it is wise to simply write off any votes. Acting like Edwards should be above it all is a nice thought, but I don't think it will win you elections if no one stands up for him.
Our election system is based on a logical fallacy - that whoever is simply prefered by the most number of people wins. I don't think we should discount the idiots among us as they are the most easily influenced and may be (probably have been) the swing vote that determines the winner.
If you read through my posts you will see I am not advocating ignoring it. I am advocating playing the game a little smarter. By becoming outraged that the candidate is becalled a metrosexual or pretty or well coiffed and treating it like it is a bad thing is playing right into their agenda. I don't think the things they are saying are negatives...I think you fight back by not treating it like an insult but rather pointing out the shallowness of those making that type of comment and pointing out that with everything going on today this is what is important to the opposition. The Edwards campaign had a great response to this crap and it really brought home how shallow and disconnected from reality those making this an issue are. I say get behind that strategy rather then thinking it is an insult to be called well-groomed, pretty, effeminate, gay or any of the other things being thrown around...in my opinion none of those are insulting and we shouldn't act like they are. Put the onus back on the republicans as to why they think this is important and why are they dorging the real issues. IMHO
Lost,
Sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying. It makes a lot of sense and is good advice. I haven't seen a witty response from Edwards, but I hope he can get such a message out above the cacophony of screechmonkeys.
You weren't the only one who thought I was advocating ignoring it so the fault is probably my own lack of clarity. Edwards may not have had a witty response but he did have a powerful one. Did you see the response? I think it played during the CNN debate. I'm sure it is on line. I think it is telling that it isn't getting more coverage...perhaps the shame it brings to the media for focusing on this crap hit a little too close to home for them to want to show it.
I do get your point. I guess it would be best to say so what he's pretty and move on and expose what was intended to be derisive to be the real nothingness that it is. But this tendency on the right to redirect from issues to nothingness is so annoying. Instead of discussing issues on poverty that the Edwards brings forth, they change the topic to John’s looks, his alleged phoniness, and whether Elizabeth’s cancer is being exploited. Michael Moore exposes the state of our broken healthcare system and they want to talk about Michael Moore’s weight. When they don’t like the message they attack the messenger.
Did you actually read the stuff MMfA provided?
CROWLEY: Yeah, the metrosexual in the race is really lagging. Not a lot of traction here for John Edwards, much to his surprise and chagrin, I think, because he's the prettiest one of the Democrats.
Supposedly he is surprised and chagrined, because he's the best looking one and he's not leading the pack.
If you can't understand why it's offensive to suggest that Edwards would think that he should be leading the pack because he's the best looking, rather than leading because he has the best qualifications or the best positions on the issues, then I can't help you.
Given two candidates with exactly the same positions, but one good looking and the other not, and you'll find that the good looking one wins. It's insulting to suggest that Edwards and the other Democratic candidates are all the same and therefore the only criteria that should matter would be his looks, and since he's the best looking one, he's got to be disappointed that he's not leading.
That's offensive.
You don't think it's an issue? Keep in mind that we are where we are today because voters felt that voting for somebody you wanted to have a beer with was more important than voting for someone who was boring or labelled an "exagerator". Forget the respectiable record and experience of one candidate, and forget the history of being nothing but a failure in everything the second candidate does. The important thing was who is more folksy.
Then the trend continued in 2004 when people were willing to overlook Bush's disasterous policies, lies, manipulation, mass corruption and cronyism, and extremist neo-conservatism because the opponent looked 'french' and was called a 'flip-flopper'. America voted for the great destroyer because they couldn't vote for someone called "french."
Never underestimate the simple mindedness of the average voter or the stories the media constantly feeds them.
I ask you again, how exactly are these "offensive" remarks about Edward's loveliness, besides jabbing his primpish reputation, promoting any conservative agenda?
I believe it promotes the conservative agenda by appealing to their homophobic base that would consider it a pertinent fact in who they vote for...you know the ones that thought it was a good idea to elect someone they would want to have a beer with. Frankly in my opinion it will only effect those who would never vote for a democrat anyway. I think it is silly.
One could also look at it another way, if the media keeps on this shallowness route and focuses on Edward's looks, then less time is spent dealing with his positions on issues which may turn voters away from him. That is a distinct possibility. Image can be good or bad, depending on many variables.
It's not always a negative for a candidate to be viewed in such a way.
Interesting take...but do you really believe that? I think the tone and ridicule with which these comments are put out there debunk your theory. I get what you are saying though about sometimes the image helps the candidate. But it is all in the presentation. For example I thought the image of Bush as the regular Joe who you could drink a beer with and didn't get to cerebral on you was a major negative in a presidential candidate but the image was promoted by the republicans and the media as some kind of positive. So while your thoery has some merit I think the scorn with which the "pretty" comments are made and the commentary they give on this being a negative say these comments aren't being used to cover up the real issues as was done with Bush.
And some people are going to be turned off by those that "ridicule" and take that disrespectful tone as well. It's a sword that cuts both ways.
Some will see these pundits comments as piling on, they come out looking shallow and foolish and may even be viewed as ignoring Edwards' issue positions while unfairly concentrating on his looks. Some will vote for Edwards based on that alone, I would imagine.
Tommy, is your position seriously that this is some great conspiracy perpetrated by Edwards supporters to benefit Edwards?
Conspiracy? Where on earth did you get that? Of course not, I am simply saying that this kind of stuff is not automatically a negative for any candidate. Just as sometimes candidate's issues are not always a positive for them either.
Look at the JFK/Nixon debate - everyone says Nixon won the debate, but JFK got the votes, based largely on image. It isn't always a bad thing, why do you think candidates are soooooooooo concerned with their image?
I've been thinking that this type of commentary on the most mundane aspects of the candidates is simply a way to further marginalize those that aren't polling strongly. It's a way to keep a couple of good ideas that may come out of a smaller campaign from seeing the light of day.
I've heard conservatives do the same to Ron Paul (as one example), except for him its not about looks as much as they say he is a nut. With Edwards, it seems to be all about suggesting that if he cares about his appearance (as a politician) and has a large house (as a successful trial lawyer), he can't be sincere when he discusses his ideas on poverty.
I may be wrong on this, but I seem to recall that in the past, weaker candidates or third parties would usually have their stronger points adapted by the majority parties/candidates as a way of gaining their supporters and helping them in a general election.
The way things seem to be done now, if you can eliminate all the stragglers before most people ever hear their ideas. Then you can get to the really important business of trying to break down voter information into Red and Blue default mode, rather than have new dynamic ideas potentially affect the outcome.
Conspiracy? I don't know. Bad journalism? Definitely.
Thoughts?oops. Should'nt have tied this to the previous comment. Sorry, wasn't commenting directly to Tommy's post, I was simply thinking about why this type of stuff is such a topic of discussion for the media. Looking for patterns and trends...
Nothing?
I agree in large part with what you're saying.
This method of trivializing candidates isn't limited to the secondary and tertiary campaigners. It's an assault on the perceptions voters hold of all candidates, especially Democrats.
These opinionists are priming voters to respond negatively to Edwards by associating negative imagery with him. Scoff if you like nay-sayers, but negative imagery manipulates preference, on emotional and intellectual levels, in ways which many casual observers are not even aware. I mean come on, nobody takes a pretty-boy seriously, this a baseless attack. This is a smear made to appear innocuous.
In fact, it's insidious.
Conspiracy? I don't think so. These political pontificators don't need marching orders or directives handed down to them. They inherently know the mission is to preserve the status quo, they know, in order to stay employed, they have to keep the corporate money raining down on The Boss Man like manna from heaven. Ask Phil Donahue if that isn't the truth.
Status quo is exactly what Edwards will shake up if nominated and elected. He's about big change. Some examples off the top of my head are: he'll break-up media consolidation, raise wages for workers and honor the nobility of labor instead of wealth. That just won't please the bosses of these pontificators, it harshes the mellow of the, "just leave well enough alone" crowd. So, he must be marginalized, as does any other candidate whom these blow-hards perceive as a threat to their rarified air.
Roundhouse: Exactly right! You got the fear the oppositon has of Edwards. He is NOT a staus quo candidate, in fact has tremendous leadership potetial, and more intregity in his baby finger that all the main stream media combined!
The conservative agenda is to make sure Edwards doesn't get elected. Anything negative that they can throw at him serves that agenda.
But you're assuming that Edward's stance on issues is always a plus for him, and anything that deviates from those issues is a negative. What about those that aren't as familiar with his positions on issues but kind of like the way he presents himself, in other words, they like the image but are unaware of his issue positions.
Wouldn't you say these types of stories are not harmful to him, but rather the contrary?
I can't speak for Edwards, but if it were me and I had a choice of winning because I'm "pretty" or losing because people weren't sold on my ideas, I think I'd choose the latter.
"But you're assuming that Edward's stance on issues is always a plus for him"--tommy
I would assume that Edwards' stance on issues should be the main thing that informs people as to whether they should vote for him or not. Call me crazy for not wanting such decisions to be made based on his appearance as Crowley seems to advocate.
Do you believe that issues are the exclusive reasons that people vote or don't vote for a certain candidate?
No. I wish that were so. Don't you?
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exclusively - let me ask it this way, do you think other variables are involved when deciding how to cast one's vote for a particular candidate other than their stance on issues?
If you are asking me if other variables exist, then yes, they do - in varying degrees of relevance.
I cannot conceive how anyone would think that "prettiness" is relevant in any way. As in this case it goes beyond the discussing appearance as a part of a professional presentation, which might be arguably a tiny bit more relevant.
I also cannot see how any legitimate candidate in either party would prefer people vote or not vote for him/her in a non-substantive reason (looks) over a substantive reason (issues) although I don't kid myself that it does happen. I don't know why anyone in their right mind would ever encourage such a thing as it appears Crowley would like.
It isn't a matter of encouraging it, it's more like pundits on the right digging it to Edwards, playing on a perceived weakness of his and exploiting it to fill airtime on these cable shows.
The truth is people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons, and any candidate that's smart will court every single vote, no matter what. If Edwards felt for one minute that these jabs or digs about his appearance or primping got him any votes, sympathy or otherwise, he would have a campaign staffer working behind the scenes to get more of this stuff out there - any candidate would, Edwards is no different than any of the others.
If Edwards' opponents want to fight in such a dirty, cowardly way, I have no qualms at all with Edwards using his opponents underhanded strategy against them for sympathy money/votes/support. It should be a lesson in retribution to those cowards not to engage in such questionable strategies to begin with. Fight fire with fire.
Of course, that is not the prefered way to do things, but I do not put the responsibility for it on Edwards' shoulders at that point. It is a response in kind as far as I am concerned.
The point is politics is a dirty sport, and played with all angles and stragegy to outdo their opponents. People vote for dozens of reasons, if you're honest, you will admit that Edwards will get votes from some simply because of what his wife is going through, just as any other candidate gets votes based on some personal like or dislike by a voter. It happens, in a perfect world issues would win out all the time, and the electorate would be as informed as those we elect - and it would be all about subtance over style every time.
But it's not, and stuff like this silliness about Edward's hair and grooming habits gets batted around by pundits looking for airtime - it occurs on both sides, and people say they hate it, but put it up against some serious forum on issues alone and what do you think people watch more?
Sadly, it's far easier for most of us to get our arms around extraneous irrelevencies and image stuff, than policy laden intracacies of a very complicated issue.
Our lives are so busy that most don't have time, so they see talk like this and some say "Stupid, I wouldn't vote for Edwards, he is a wussy".......while others say "Who is this Crowley broad, she just hates Edwards and doesn't want to discuss issues obviously, I like Edwards, he is better than this, he has my vote".
Conservatives will never have a chance to vote for Edwards. He won't get that far. This is what cracks me up about all this. Every candidate that gets slmmed fairly or unfairly by the right, it's because "they don't want him to win". Well, duh.
Democrats choose their candidate, remember? The right doesn't choose your candidate. Last time, you chose a moderate Republican lite guy who got clobbered. This time, you may choose more wisely. But don't blame the right for who you end up with.
If conservatives had their way they would probably nominate John Edwards as the D candidate - he could be much easier to beat than some of the others, in my opinion.
So much for furthering the conservative agenda that's out to get him.
If conservatives had their way they would probably nominate John Edwards as the D candidate - he could be much easier to beat than some of the others, in my opinion.
Mine too. Republican/Conservatives fear a Hillary or Obama.
Edwards has been wallowing in 3rd place for awhile now. It's Democrats, not Republicans that aren't impressed or he'd be doing better...wouldn't he?
My Take:
Republicans fear Hillary.
I think the Republicans have been giving Obama the kid glove treatment for two reasons:
1. Because he is black, and they are hypersensitive about receiving criticism about being racist.
2. Because he is gaffe-prone (10,000 dead in Kansas, will meet with every dictator, etc.) and would make a fine target if chosen as the oppo Pres candidate
I think Republicans would be fine with either gravitas-lacking Edwards or not-ready-for-prime-time Obama
I disagree. I think Republicans fear Obama the most. And for good reason.
I think that is why they bring up Obama's middle name, ethnicity/ancestry and church so often. If Republicans are afraid of being seen as "racist", they are doing a pretty lousy job of it IMO.
As for the "gaffes", it is pretty laughable that is even an issue to Republicans - especially considering who they chose the last few times.
Exactly Bruce.
The only way Edwards will get the Democratic nomination is if Hillary or Obama screw up royally.
And it will have nada to do with what Conservative/Republicans think or say about him.
On the off chance Edwards ever was the nominee, I will predict any Republican would beat him.
Jeter, you honestly think it would be a complete landslide for a Republican candidate if Edwards was the nominee? I don't know, man, I can't see the American people voting for another Republican after suffering from eight years under the Bush Administration. I don't think the general public shares your disdain for Edwards as much as you think.
Preston,
Landslide? No. Democrats will vote for whomever is nominated from their party. And despite Bush fatigue, I still believe this country is pretty evenly divided. So in order for Edwards to win he'd have to count on cross-over voters & Independents. I doubt most Republicans would ever vote for Edwards or Clinton. They might consider Obama. Personally, I haven't warmed to any of the Republican candidates thus far, and would at least give Obama & even Hillary [because of Bill] some consideration. But Edwards? Never.
I doubt Independents would get behind Edwards. As it stands today he's not even attracting many Democrats either. I think Giuliani, Romney,Thompson or McCain would have a better chance against Edwards picking up Independent voters.
"I doubt Independents would get behind Edwards. As it stands today he's not even attracting many Democrats either. I think Giuliani, Romney,Thompson or McCain would have a better chance against Edwards picking up Independent voters."
He rocked the house at YearlyKos, I'd say that counts as attracting many Democrats. And yes, he resonates with independents because he doesn't patronize them with triangulation or cowboy diplomacy. He speaks to all voters as he speaks to the Democratic base, that's the definition of authenticity.
To say independents would swing toward Rudy or Thompson or whatever Reagan-lite candidate the GOP offers over Edwards assumes that the country still has any semblance of affection left for Republicans.
Change is coming.
The Republicans had long enough to do something good and did little else but put their lust for power and corporate interests above the people's business. Republicans are done for awhile; they blew it. Iraq, Katrina, wealth gap, healthcare gap, torture, domestic spying, politicized Justice Dept, politicized HHS, Alberto Gonzales, Haliburton, stem cells, Schiavo, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, "Duke" Cunningham, K-Street, TRiM-PAC...eegads.
You think voters are gonna stand up and yell, "Thank-you sir! May I have another?!"
It's Edwards the Republicans are most scared of.
Hmmm? Mind reader?
As they should be.
"I doubt Independents would get behind Edwards. As it stands today he's not even attracting many Democrats either. I think Giuliani, Romney,Thompson or McCain would have a better chance against Edwards picking up Independent voters."
He rocked the house at YearlyKos, I'd say that counts as attracting many Democrats. And yes, he resonates with independents because he doesn't patronize them with triangulation or cowboy diplomacy. He speaks to all voters as he speaks to the Democratic base, that's the definition of authenticity.
To say independents would swing toward Rudy or Thompson or whatever Reagan-lite candidate the GOP offers over Edwards assumes that the country still has any semblance of affection left for Republicans.
Change is coming.
The Republicans had long enough to do something good and did little else but put their lust for power and corporate interests above the people's business. Republicans are done for awhile; they blew it. Iraq, Katrina, wealth gap, healthcare gap, torture, domestic spying, politicized Justice Dept, politicized HHS, Alberto Gonzales, Haliburton, stem cells, Schiavo, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, "Duke" Cunningham, K-Street, TRiM-PAC...eegads.
You think voters are gonna stand up and yell, "Thank-you sir! May I have another?!"
If Edwards is resonating so much with Democrats, please explain his languishing in third place in many of the polls among Democrats now?
He may be the darling of the far left base of his party, but that won't win a general election....which are won in the middle.
Who cares about polls? Especially this far away from the nomination?
You assume Kos is some far out organiztion. I disagree.
I don't think playing to the middle helps win votes. The right won't respect a Democratic candidate who moves right, it makes the candidate look phony, like a sellout. The left won't respect a candidate that moves right, it makes them feel alienated. The so called center will respect the candidate who sticks to their beliefs and doesn't patronize them.
Please show me the last far left candidate that got campaigned and got elected POTUS? Certainly not Clinton, he campaigned as a centrist. So you have to back more than 30 years to Carter, who is far left but did not campaign or get elected because of that.
Blah, blah, blah...stickin' to your principles and beliefs is not far...anything.
The great historian Rick Perlstein wrote an incredible article years ago about the reason why Democrats have problems winning elections. I believe it's a good read.
http://bostonreview.net/BR29.3/perlstein.html
According to the polls to date, you're wrong.
IIRC, while Clinton and Obama are more popular among Democrats, when all voters are sampled (not just Democrats) Edwards does better against all the Republican nominees than they do.
You think Republican strategists are too stupid to pay attention to these early polls? You think they haven't invested tons of $ in consultants who have told them how to use language style in a way to undermine the opposition?
The key problem here is what the first commenter pointed out--that the media applies a double standard; that looking good is a good thing for Republicans but somehow a bad thing for Democrats. And what better way to get this point across to the sexists and insecure males in the audience than to accuse a male Democrat of being stereotypically "womanly"?
"Democrats choose their candidate, remember?"--bruce
Actually I believe the Democrats are oddly pretty easily influenced by what Republicans and their minions in the media say about their candidates. For instance, remember when Wesley Clark had a big lead in Democratic primary polls and Ed Gillespie (former chairman of the RNC) went on all of the cable shows to claim Clark said nice things about President Bush? Soon afterwards, Clark's numbers tanked. Later Clark was attacked (by Republicans) with the utterly stupid "stalking horse for Hillary" nonsense.
I believe Republican interference was deeply responsible for Clark's tanking at the time.
I also believe the Democrats picked Kerry because at the time, Republicans didn't say much about him (during the primary process) leading Democrats to believe Kerry was more invincible than he apparently was. Kerry was picked because he was "electable" IMO - as the media kept describing him - not because he was the best candidate.
Of course the Democrats will select the candidate that represents their positions AND is electable in their opinion against the Republican candidate. Since you won't be facing an incumbent, who tend to be the favorites regardless of party, you should assume that whichever candidate you choose is going to be the favorite.
I just dismiss out of hand the notion that the right is somehow manipulating the process of who wins the Democratic nomination when we don't have a vote in the whole process! Grow a pair!
First of all, I am not a Democrat, I am an Independent. I am not sure if I will vote in the Democratic or Republican primary for that matter. Where I live, there isn't much choice as almost every local candidate is a Republican.
Secondly, I think it is obvious that Republicans are trying to influence the Democratic primary based on what they have done in the past and what I have seen during this election cycle. I really don't think that is a slam on Republicans as much as it is on the Democrats who have indicated their gullability on this matter. Unfortunately Democrats are too stupid to pick the best candidate on their own. We'll see if they have learned their lesson from the last time around. Hopefully it was just an anomally.
It's dismissive. Plain and simple. "He's just a pretty boy" that's followed by a tacit "with no substance."
It would be too much to expect actual journalism, I guess.
Tommy asked how exactly these comments are offensive.
If you can't understand why it's offensive to suggest that Edwards would think that he should be leading the pack because he's the best looking, rather than leading because he has the best qualifications or the best positions on the issues, then I can't help you.
Given two candidates with exactly the same positions, but one good looking and the other not, and you'll find that the good looking one wins. It's insulting to suggest that Edwards and the other Democratic candidates are all the same and therefore the only criteria that should matter would be his looks, and since he's the best looking one, he's got to be disappointed that he's not leading.
That's offensive.
I sort of agree with you on this with one exception...I don't have a problem with highlighting the idiocy of what the republicans think is important in a presidential candidate...attention is fine it should just be the right kind of attention...in line with the Edward's commercial response highlighting the idiocy of making this an issue and what are the really important issues. So I feel keep highlighting it as the shallowness of the oposition and give up the outrage that the candidate happens to be well groomed and "pretty"...who cares about that...well, except for the shallow oposition (-;
The World According to Tommy:
1) Why is this here?
2) If you ignore them, they'll stop.
Yeah! That will work!!! Just like Kerry ignored the idiot Swift Dingy's and they simply went away.
Get real. Too may American's listen to this crap (even if we ignore the vapidness of a Hannity or Limbaugh) to believe that the topic should be left alone.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. You are making this into a chicken and egg situation when it isn't. Edwards was attacked over the haircut and it was a while before he commented on it. Yet despite saying nothing, the media spent countless hours examining his haircut and insinuating Edwards is out of touch and a hypocrit in all his policy ideas as a result.
Finally Edwards fights back and that is seen as an excuse to keep the story going? Give me a break. The story was going to continue regardless of what Edwards said because the media WANTS it to continue. It's their "flip flop" moment...their "french" moment for Edwars. It's the narative they have built and they will filter everything through it from now on.
Edwards can fight back or he can do nothing and let the media treat him as not only a hypocrit, but weak and unable to deal with criticism. And if he's unable to deal with criticism...then just image how the media will spin that into a new narative about Edwards qualifications. No, fighting back, and making that "hair" video was brilliant.
It's probably too much to ask, what the word "metrosexual" is supposed to mean?
There's a deffinition a few posts above. In short a heterosexual with a gay sense of style. Which seems to be a put down for any hetro male democrat with to good a sense of style. There is no escape unless your a Ripublican. In which case MSM comes down with a collective mancrush. Which can be icky but profitable.
For her purposes, Crowley, all that matters is she gets to say Edwards is something sexual and it aren't hetero folks (wink wink). Crowley is an apprentice attack dog, you know, the female kind (wink wink) who is hoping to get invited to the next Shrub confab at the WH where she can play her female attack dog role with the big dogs. (Go ahead, read between the lines !!) Let's not be naive, this is someone who considers Ann "attack dog" Coulter a great role model. They don't care about issues, they hate most Americans, they don't care if you have justice for all and they sure as dog turds don't care what I think about them!! All we can do is engage our fellow citizens in discussion and get them to question the lies and stories they believe to be true because they have heard it a million times in the media.
The Republicans need an ill-informed and apathetic public in order to have any chance of winning. That's one reason why their media friends, employed by corps. headed by big Repub. contributors and sympathizers, behave as they do.
Unfortunately for Edwards, he's allowed himself to be cast in the 'metrosexual' mode. the $400 and $1,200 haircuts and the video from the last campaign of him spending an inordinate amount of time primping have provided a caricature that will not go away. Until he stops looking like he's auditioning for the evening newscaster, he's going to be tagged as effeminate. He needs to show up at a debate looking a bit rumpled. Maybe he should wear a flannel shirt over a t-shirt like Ray Romano.
Romney runs the very same risk.
Oh good idea...disrespect your audience by showing up "rumpled". I repeat who cares if he is pretty or well-groomed...in most this ain't exactly a negative. Why should he be anything but what he is...a well-groomed, attractivly presenting guy. Get over it and worry about some real issues...that is what anyone who votes for Edwards will be doing.
Lost,
I am so over it.
I could care less about the guy. I think he's as phoney as one gets. I never liked the guy. I have a personal dislike for lawyers who made millions specializing in suing doctors for a living.
So needless to say, he can do, wear, look anyway he wants. I could care less.
AA,
You're right, I share your disdain for Edwards, as well, admittedly. It all these petty nuanced irrelevant trivialities that everyone gets so worked up over regarding these candidates. This is what happens when they have to start pimping for votes and support a year away from the first primary vote is cast.
Edwards can look like a Calvin Klein model, or a cornfield resident of Hee Haw for all I care. He will never get my vote either.
Bruce left this link on another thread about Edwards.
I believe it gives some good insight about this phony.
http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/139273.html
I would say that John Edwards and his supporters' biggest hope is that the media keep talking up his pretty boy image - for it then will not have time to expose him for the phony he is.
Be careful what you wish for.
I just read the linked article and it's pretty thin broth. The author, Brad Warthen, simply trots out three anecdotal stories about Edwards appearing upbeat before a crowd, but appearing "bored" or less effusive or friendly to people behind the scenes. Oh, and according to an unnamed insider, Edwards was out jogging while people were waiting to hear him at a speech. If the author had pointed out something substantive about how Edwards' public positions were substantially at variance with his voting record, I'd be prepared to listen, but this article was thin on substance and long on trivial nit-picking.
In fact, two of the three were simply hearsay.
I'd be interested to see what - if anything - Brad had to say about Edwards on Oct 17, 2004 when he wrote that he was still undecided. Specifically, does it square with the prior three events and his present opinion? Unfortunately, The State archive is pay to read.
Your link proves nothing. I hope others check it out to verify that it's a person with an ax to grind without much basis for suggesting a tree needs to be cut down.
You got that right: anecdotal, hearsay, and not even on-point.
Translation: You've made up your mind regarding Edwards, so any discussion about him is irrelevant. Good for you.
And in what morally superior ways have your favorite candidates amassed their wealth?
Any other honest way that creates wealth and adds to the economy. Why should he, or any lawyer that matter, for a few weeks worth of work get 33% or more of the proceeds of a lawsuit that is supposed to compensate a plaintiff for massive injuries?
I know all the arguments. I think the system stinks. Edwards and lawyers like him use the system that is intended to compensate the victims to make themselves millions. In the process he made life hell for a number of doctors, their families, and their patients. And lastly, lets not forget, he helped drive up insurance rates that we all now must pay. His career benefited him and a few of his clients, but it cost the rest of us a lot.
And...
in what morally superior ways have your favorite candidates amassed their wealth?
Leave out, if you will, the adjudicated negligence of those doctors he sued (and promise us that when one of those fellows cuts you in half, and then says "oooops!", you won't sue). How about the criminally negligent corporations he took down, as with the doctors, on his dime, for that 30% or less?
When our system does not allow victims to sue, it is certainly time to get a new system.
And everyone of those doctors and hospitals that coughed up the millions made the lives of their patients families hell.
The only difference is that the poor doctors and hospital administrators made it home for dinner with their families while the patients families had an empty chair at dinner, an empty bed at night and pain that lasts the rest of their lives.
I can tell by your posts that your family has never been on the receiving end of improper medical care. Consider yourself lucky.
Good job! You got in every single talking point the right feeds us about the "evil trial lawyers". Please don't mention any of the evils that the corperations do in order to get sued. Please don't talk about the actual malpracrice that goes on. Ignore all of that and just concetrate on those evil people like Edwards. Forget that without people like Edwards, a ot of those who were injured or wronged would have no way to seek damages for the wrongs done to them.
Could you please put for the right wing talking points against unions becuase I haven't heard them in a while?
Be careful what you wish for.
After last night's debate I would guess that the media will be ranting and raving about the evils of organized labor and how the Democratic candidates pandered to the evil unions.
Ah, like showing up in a wrinkled workshirt, jeans, cowboy hat, and dusty boots. Kind of reminds me of someone
Now AA I know he didn't actually show up at the debates looking like that, but this was the attire that he frequently made available for photo ops to potray this completely false working-class regular guy persona. Too many Americans bought it.
Yeah, W" was billed as our first bow legged president. What a crock. That brush clearing and cod piece on the aircraft carrier were a nice bit theatre as well. And don't forget Fred Thompson's red pick up and Grumpy McCain's stupid "straight talk express" bus. Really, calling Edwards a phony? Get real.
Why dont all the male candidates go to debates shirtless and wearing a pair of tattered overalls. The shoujld also carry guns, lots of guns slung over thier bulging muscules. Also, any man who's is any less than these guys is instantly disqualified from the debate.
Oh, and the chicks, must look like this, But they cant talk. They can only watch.
Hey, How'd you find my picture?
I like the second link. The one with Edwards and the mop. ;-)
Ewww. I don't like muscle bound men. They look grotesque to me. I want my man soft and flabby. A little paunch looks kind of cute. No bony elbows bruising me either. ;)
These guys are quite scary and inauthentic looking. Most men don't authentically look like this. These guys are either spending an inordinate amount of time in the gym, they're juicing, or both. I agree with JuliaJayne, real men don’t bulge like this. BTW what an absolutely lovely prototype of a Republican housewife. Hopefully she’s almost ready for mass production and AA and RINO can get their orders in.
"Until he stops looking like he's auditioning for the evening newscaster, he's going to be tagged as effeminate."
Sure he'll be "tagged"----by the wingnuts. Because that's what they do. Hillary's a lesbian. Kerry is effeminate. So is Gore. They can't win on what matters, so just like 5th graders they resort to garbage like this. They just can't help it. Then we end up with a tough, macho cowboy with a big belt buckle who is incompetent. And there's the appeal to the wingnuts of Thompson. A big, tall bulldog who smokes big phallic cigars and is really tough (on tv). Totally qualified in their minds to succeed Bush.
I think it would have helped if Gore didn't lithp.
;-)
AA's remark just sort of proves my point. They can't help themselves.
hahaha.. it was tongue in cheek.
physician, heal thyself.
In my opinion, this not that significant of a comment in the scheme of stupid or negative comments that come out of the mouths of these so called political analysts, but it does reiterate the media's tendency to ascribe or turn these candidates into these one dementional caricatures, Edwards is the pretty one, H. Clinton is disingenuous, Obama the fresh one, Giuliani owns 9-11 and so on and so on. Furthermore this is just a matter of opinion anyway because I think Obama is pretty as well. (smile)
Hi Lynn. I agree it is really silly these boxes everyone is put in and how everything they do is commented on through that prism. I wonder how much these things really effect actual voters and how they vote. Do you think it actually changes their vote? I feel if you are interested in a candidate and you make your own judgements these labels make the labeler come off looking really foolish and uninformed on the real issues.
Hey Lost,
I agree that most reasonable people will ignore these guys and study the issues and the candidate’s records and make up their own minds, but I wonder if it has some effect on some. John Kerry was characterized as this North Eastern Liberal elitist and Bush as the regular beer drinking Joe even though he was a recovered alcoholic and the son of a prominent rich North Eastern family. I think those characterizations may have indeed had some effect on a portion of the electorate. I think this is why MMFA makes sure to expose the media when they do this. If it ensures that there isn’t a repeat of what I speculate and MMFA apparently has speculated as well that there may have been some voting on image and not substance that occurred in the last presidential election.I wonder if it actually took votes away from Kerry or if the persona they developed for Bush added to driving out the base...you know the high number of evangelicals that came out to vote. I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't think MMFA shouldn't cover these comments. I didn't mean to say that if that is how my comments have been interpreted. My point was more that those who support these candidates should stop treating it like a major insult and flaw in the candidate and treat it like the shallow fluff it is and emphasize that lack of interest of the opposition in real issues.
What's wrong with sending a message to MSM and telling them that this type of political discourse isn't desired?
I think it's easier for some people to focus on fluff because getting into in-depth policy issues is too difficult. I would love to see a survey on John Edwards that is designed to find out the reasons why people don't support him. My guess on the top 2 would be
1) Frivolous Law Suits.
2) Out of touch with the American public (due to $400 dollar hair cuts)
I wonder how many people could discuss his platform in any depth?
MHK,
I do believe people form a general impression of the candidate that includes their policy issues and their overall demeanor, including looks.
The debates in 1960 have been determined by many to have given JFK the boost he needed, (plus a few votes in Chicago) to sway the election. Kennedy looked good, Nixon looked like a crook. (Hmmmm???)
Reagan is another one. Many people simply liked him and the optimistic view he presented as opposed to the 'general malaise' of Jimmy Carter era. He benefited from his easygoing, friendly but firm persona.
Since there are so many issues and so much campaigning, people naturally simplify the process and many times it comes down to a 'feeling' of who they like as a candidate. I really don't see much wrong with that. Every candidate tries to project that likability image. Some do, like GW, and some don't, like Kerry.
I think someone like Obama is counting on this general good feeling since he doesn't have much of a record to run on. His speeches reflected that. They were general feel good messages. His off the cuff foreign policy gafffes have seriously eroded that persona and now he's attacked by others as inexperienced. He better do something quick before it sticks.
"[Obama's] off the cuff foreign policy gafffes have seriously eroded that persona and now he's attacked by others as inexperienced. He better do something quick before it sticks."
Ya gotta love the tremendous free pass people like AA have given to Bush's gaffes (which is too mild a word) for six long years, and then their oh so concerned advice to Obama to "do something quick".
I think Bush's gaffes, as opposed to Obama's, in some ways worked for him. His inability to articulate made many feel he isn't intelligent. But to others, it made him look less calculating than his opponents who many times came across (imho) looking a bit too slick.
As an aside, I saw Bush not too long ago, admit that saying "Bring it on" was one of his biggest regrets.
Exactly the point. It's about "appearances" and conservatives' willingness to excuse Bush's gaffs. In hindsight, it's clear that Bush's gaffs revealed not just a less-calculating man, but one of limited intellect as well. Or at least a man of a simplistic mind, which is just as dangerous in a complex position like The Decider.
Perhaps in someone who is clearly inarticulate, like Bush, such miscues are not as damaging because the bar is already set so damn low. The quesion is, why would you set the bar that low for your Presidential candidate?
Choosing a U.S. president because they made gaffes -as apparently you did - hasn't worked out very well, to put it mildly.
Also, it took a long, long time for Bush to admit even ONE, single regret. As far as I know, and in spite of the terrible mess our country is in (due to Bush's "gaffes"), that, he says, is his only regret.
AA
I'm sure you have people in your life that dislike Edwards that don't track politics like you appear to. Ask them why they don't like Edwards and then ask him if they can articulate any of his platform or ask for specifics about what they don't like in his politics. I think your going to find that the majority of people can only cite the "fluff" reasons..... people are far more susceptible to "tabloid" political discourse then I think your willing to admit. This isn't about how Edwards looks, it's about the consistent negative connotations that area being attached to his campaign based on appearance.
Case in point - on NPR yesterday they had a story on Islam and why Americans are afraid or have reservations on the religion. The reporter asked this one man to articulate what parts of the religion he had an issue with and he couldn't say anything specific. If the media repeats something enough times then it starts to effect the way that we think and it isn't always a conscious decision.
MHK, please excuse the "tone" of my previous post. I reread your post on Edwards, and I think you were just making the point on the WHY the looks and litigation lawyer aspects are being pushed about Edwards to generate negativity.
It's NOT coming from Democrats. John Edwards is a strong candidate, in fact there are a number of very strong candidates on the Democrat side, including Clinton, Obama, Richardson, and Biden.
The debate tonight should be informative and interesting.
I could really care less on who Republicans put up. Their current roster currently carries significant negatives one and all.
Once upon a time.. I was drawn to Mccain and his "Straight Talk" Express. But as everyone knows that train has long left the station, and is now the proverbial train wreck.
As far as looks go and what the Republican candidates have dome in their previous government and non-government careers.. well there's a lot of baggage there, not to mention their personal life fiascos.
Funny how the main stream media misses the rip opportunities to point that all out in mocking ways.
Though they have shown Rudy's daughter's face-book entry on Obama's site lately. Still all in all that's pretty weak.
Could have played up Romney's flip flops and melt downs this past weekend more.. I think I almost saw a hair out of place. ooops.
MHK-
How trivial can you be? Who CARES what john Edwards pays for his hair cut? It's not taxpayer money.
He made his living winning jury trials in our system of justice. Gawd forbid you ever need to be respresented in a court of law after you've been screwed by the medical system, and cost you a loved one's life, or left you disabled, or worse...
Can you even site one case where you feel the jury got it wrong with Edwards legal representation.
This mindless knee jerk bashing of Edwards is so transparent. The man is honorable.
Period.
Why do you care that he's a candidate for the Democrat nomination for President?
Are you a Democrat?
Have you looked at the other side?
You want to talk money, looks, unscrupulous behavior. Have at it.
Hi Lost,
I can tell you with 100% certainty that these endlessly repeated messages do affect how citizens vote. I have heard several times recently that "Edwards, he's the one who got the $400 haircut? The breck girl? haha". "yes" I say, are you familiar with his main campaign issue? "Huh?" The point is, some folks are completely conditioned to vote against someone, not vote for someone. This is the level we are at.
Relax Monica, he's spoken for.
Ok I read the link supposed show how phony Edwards is.
1) Edwards concentrating before speaking to a crowd smiles while being introduced
2) A copy editor at The State likes Howard Dean better than Edwards.
3) Edwards runs behind schedule while supporters sit in the sun.
Pardon me for laughing.
This is some weak bs.
You all know if Edwards were a Republican Rove and company would be pushing him as all that's right with America.
Son of a mill worker, self made millionaire.
What Republican doesn't love that?
Yeah, Johnny. He done pulled hisself by the bootstraps. Unlike the "enfante terrible" now occupying the big house, er WH. Just wishful thinkin'.
Let's see, Crowley's knock against Edwards is his campaign is trying to get headlines any way it can.
Tell me Monica, which campaign isn't?
What campaign doesn't have the candidate kissing babies and flipping pancakes?
That's what campaign's are supposed to do, keep the candidate in the limelight.
Somebody is gonna dispute that Edwards is the son of a mill worker, worked his way through college and is a self made millionaire?
Man, this right wing misinformation machine works better than I thought.
All the fuss on John Edwards Looks...
the idiot pundits and I do put Crowley in that category, use the "looks"" factor to somehow try and diminish John Edwards.
What a sorry lot- and that includes the inventor of the mocking "breck girl" Limbaugh.
The irony (if there is any irony possible) is that there mus t be a whole lot of UGLY looking and feeling people out there. There sure is a whole lot of UGLY acting and actors. I'll refrain from commenting on Crowley and Limbaugh's "looks".
But truth be told... many many studies and research have proved for better or worse that attractive people are favored in just about every area.
The fact that John Edwards is attractive is scaring the heck out of the opposition party and the parroting propaganda press.
Interesting...
Right square on the nose, WTP!
What we're witnessing here is page 1 paragraph 1 from Rove 101. The first thing a Republican candidate must be prepared to do is to preemptively attack his opponents greatest perceived strength. If Edwards is physically attractive... a clear & time tested advantage in politics... then do what you can to label him vain, pretty, unmanly, and/or effeminate. If he stands up for the interests of the working class, then he is engaging in 'class warfare'. If he has achieved any sort of financial success, then accuse him of being a hypocrite for... for... for God knows why, JUST DO IT!
And as so many posters on this thread have amply demonstrated... this bullsh*t has legs that Betty Grable would envy!
So Crowley wants to be taken seriously after making comments like this? When she goes from giving Fashion Hints to the candidates into her "serious" political analysis about Edwards trying to garner publicity, she sounds like my pet dog trying to sing opera. You stare in amazement not at the quality of her thought but at the fact that she is attempting thoughtful analysis.
(P.S. She fails)
John Edwards is a lot more attractive then Hillary, Barack and the rest of the bunch. Not that I would vote for any Democrat.
But be serious. Who in their right mind would Vote another Clinton in office? Polls are never accurate this early in the game. She just (Hillary does) has a big mouth. That's all.
"How exactly are these "offensive" remarks about Edward's loveliness, besides jabbing his primpish reputation, promoting any conservative agenda?"
There more than a "primpish reputation" being jabbed here -- Crowley is clearly giving us Coulter-lite with a thinly veiled suggestion that Edwards is gay. And homophobia is a major organizing tool of the American Right.
Well, I shouldn't have needed the urging, but - Thanks, Monica! My fixed pittance has arrived in my account, time to visit the Edwards campgaign site!
"campaign"
MSNBC is owned by General Electric. John Edwards is the anti-big corporation candidate. General Electric is a huge corporation. You know where I'm going with this.
And speaking of MSNBC and General Electric's hate towards John Edwards, did you guys see Chris Mathews post-debate analysis tonight? Who did he "think" lost the debate? None other than John Edwards.
What's it matter? They ALL wear make-up, even Cheney and Obama. They're ALL "pretty boys" in suits and make-up. They show about as much masculinity as a dress.
Watch out there, sonny...some of those Scottsmen seem pretty masculine to me in their kilts. They could take you out!
Aye, but them Scots, they nay wearing rouge, lassie.
How about 'metro-airhead'? As long as we're looking for new sensitivity labels to josh and trivialize everybody, seems we should shouldn't leave that one out.