Daily Kos

Why does he argue Edwards is rising too fast, then proceed to enumerate all the other cases where a politician rose to the top at least as fast?

It just goes to show that the media is interested in sensationalistic gossip.  After all, that's what sells newspapers.

Something to brighten everyone's day..

Who do you think you are, the Vice Preznit?  This isn't the Senate floor, y'know.

[/end unabashed sarcasm]

On a serious note, the Rove machine will certainly have dirt to spread on Edwards, even if they have to manufacture some.

Or maybe he likes the Cheneying he gets from some B/C oppo babe. Just theorizing.

all these assholes like Fineman just want to "keep more of their own money." Because "they've earned it" and "John Edwards is antibusiness" and "John Kerry will hurt corporate profits." I truly think they are all just worried about their stock portfolios. And who wouldn't rather live in a theocracy (tm) than support policies that are "antibusiness"? Oh and plus John Edwards is more succesful than they are. Don't discount the jealous-of-a-younger-male factor amongst the punditocracy.

is why i read Markos. Smacking around the snivelling media whores.

when they discover that (gasp) Edwards forced some $1mil/yr small business man to retreat, in bankruptcy, to his palatial country house for just a teeny weeeny bit of lying, cheating and stealing. They know in their souls that everyone hates trial lawyers and loves bidnez men. I wait for this campaign.

Shocked I am that Howard Fineman could write something as ludicrous, pointless and inaccurate as that piece.

"Fineman is a tool, with this bizarre, idiotic, and asinine column betraying his obvious fantasy that Rove find dirt -- any dirt -- to marr Edwards' squeaky clean facade."

The part of the column that JMM highlights is indeed idiotic.

But Fineman is normally an above average columnist.  He normally takes a left of center position.  He's not a partisan columnist who's "on our side" like E.J. Dionne, but he's usually an enlightening read.

Pick your enemies more carefully.

He's (actually, they it would seem) are reaching while we are retching.

Consider this.  When Edwards ran for the Senate in 1998 (two years before Bush-in-the-Box popped up) he was thoroughly vetted by the GOP attack machine.  Nada.

Why?  Because there is nada.

If "in a hurry" is all they can come up with, they will have to read some bio on the man.  The death of his son in 1996 gave him a new and urgent sense of the fragility and passing nature of life.  He decided to live, and to give back more than he had been.

These are desperate men in desperate times spinning desperate stories to console themselves.

Fools.

has anyone else noticed the dreadful dye job Howie is sporting?  Why, last night on "Hardball" I thought he was Elizabeth Dole!

And other expletives. Again, the true tragedy here is all this is only distracting from issues that are of real importance: Iraq; Afghanistan; the economy...look! JANET JACKSON'S NIPPLE!

My guess is the Rove smear on Edwards will come from some sorehead that got pimp-slapped by Edwards in court.

The Dems need to be ready to demonstrate that Edwards' lawyering benefitted working class people and those who really needed a capable advocate.

This Forum on Fark, if you haven't seen it already.  

It literally had me on the floor at work

a new frankness. Fuck Fineman is right, alliterative and very french (as in pardon my). In this age of subjectivity our only hope is to call things what they are.

I'm continually amazed by these so-called journalists who purport to be smart and learned, who, time and again, shamelessly pull sh!t straight from their asses because it matches their own, uninformed "hunch," or "sense," when doing so in print just reveals their own limited knowledge of political history.

Its freakin' shameless.  I long for a day that puts a premium on an accurate news story rather than a "timely" one.

Fineman just ought to be embarrassed.  If I handed in a memo of this quality to my superiors, I'd be fired.

You can always go with "Cheney Fineman"

Found this useful link;

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/elections/elections_links.html

Anyone have a DC phone directory?

What's wrong with this supposed liberal media always cracking down on the democrats. What a joke! I remember seeing William Scheider analyze Edwards soon after the announcement. He quickly stated how underqualified he was and how the Republicans would exploit this. Liberal media bias my ass!

Thank you Kos, and thank you Josh - you guys really do keep many of us from wasting time and energy getting angry.  

I guess it is far too noble of a goal for Fineman to light the candle rather than curse the darkness.  

Bush can no longer win and they know it.  

What about GW himself, in the 2000 elections he had the same amount of experience as Governor as Edwards now has as Senator.

I really liked that feature.

In other news...

Bush Whitehouse in October 2004.

A bit OT but in same general theme: In Edwards pieces in LA Times yesterday and by Mara Liasson this morning on NPR, both brought up the Thug canard about lack of experience, without mentioning Bush's equivalent lack of experience. In the context of a press that had had even a wee bit of brain function during the Iraq build-up, I would forgive this. But given their flatine coma during this entire presidency (until things started going REALLY badly in Iraq) I find these omissions equivalent to journalistic malpractice. The Thugs make this charge against Edwards knowing that the only hope of them not looking like total idiots is that the press will dutifully report what they say and discuss its merits re the VP, and somehow fail to mention that Bush ran for the TOP of the ticket with the same number of years of experience in government office, and NONE at the national level. And Of ocourse, that is exactly what the press (for the most part) has done.

I called LA Times yesterday; NPR call coming up -- go give them hell!

If the Kerry/Edwards ticket really takes off after the convention I wouldn't be surprised for Drudge to come out with an Edwards bimbo story. After all, aren't he and Rove bunkmates? By the way, the old Media Whores On Line website didn't give Fineman the Media Whore of the Year Award for nothing. He's a smarmy, conventional wisdom prick.

for me to want to beat the flying fucking shit out of Fineman?

James Pinkerton's column yesterday called Edwards a hypocrite for speaking out against outsourcing while having $1-5 million in a fund containing foreign investments.  Pinkerton called for him to divest this fund.  My email exchange with Pinkerton is below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Upper West
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 6:06 PM
To: pinkerto@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Edwards Investments

You're right that one of the funds in which Edwards has investments includes primarily foreign investments.  However, you imply that the listing in USA today deliberately misstates the name to obscure these investments.  The prospectus you cite has on its first page "American Funds" and below that "EuroPacific Growth Funds."  Further, this site "http://www.maxfunds.com/content/thefunds/AEGFX.htm lists it as American EuroPacific Growth Fund, as does an article in the 7/7 China Daily( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/07/content_346092.htm).  These sources have no motivation to obscure the EuroPacific connection by putting "American" in front.  It is wrong to imply that the way Edwards listed the investments was intended to obscure foreign ties.

Moreover,  your piece does not mention that the balance and majority of the investments are domestic, including UNC bonds and other investments in NC. (The reader would have to, as I did, look up yesterday's USA today to find that out.)

Also, I don't think it's as cut and dried as you say that he is a hypocrite to have holdings in foreign countries when he opposes outsourcing.  Can't he believe that these foreign investments will grow even without outsourcing of jobs that might be filled here?  Isn't it possible that some of them have reverse outsourcing (sending jobs here?).

I believe the column oversimplifies a complex issue, and is misleading as to the implication that he deliberately misstated the name of the fund.

Pinkerton's Response

pinkerto@ix.netcom.com>
"[Upper West]
Subject: RE: Edwards Investments
>Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:52:48 -0400
Hi:

I will be interested to see if Edwards makes the sort of defense of himself that you made for him.  As of now, I will stand by my statement that he's a hypocrite.

No need to risk the G-rating for this piece of junk. Howard's just doing a pundit masturbation on a boring Friday with nothing else to write about that he can throw out with working too hard.

I'm sure Karl Rove and friends will find something in Edwards' record to hammer, and I'm sure no one will care. Being "new" to politics is actually a bonus, among the VDE ("voters who decide elections" ... i.e swingers).

Kos, why so surprised when this is the same shilling psuedo journalist that in tandem with Jonothan Alter to help take down Howard Dean?

Where was the outrage then?  Same question to anybody else on this site who supported anybody other than Howard Dean.

You didn't seem to mind Howard Fineman then, did you.

In the end I feel the same way about Fineman.  He and his other corporate lackeys in the media are a disaster for this country.

BTW, I've hosted 4 Kerry Meetups in Glendale and enthusiastically will vote for him for President.

Staying TRUE to Howard Dean's message going back to March of 2003!

His writing is pedestrian and urbane compared to Coulter et al and it is difficult to see whether he is pulling out the knives while he's talking nice or he's really being legitimately analytical. I admit I read everything he says. While right wingers have nonsensical allegations, I could picture Republican leaners asking me about these sorts of issues and potentially stumping me, and it's great to see someone take them on.

His ignoring that Edwards escaped 1998 without any scandals being uncovered is a big point though.

And **, Josh Marshall knows how to read into an argument. I remembered some of the names--and remembered they weren't around for long--and that's as close as I get to his reasoning. But I didn't know/find the ultimate info of actual years served, etc. He's just good. And rigorous.

Fineman also ignores how Edwards had to spend a bit of time to get to third base, where Our Fearsome, uh Fearless, Leader started.

Check out a recent blog on http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com listing the experience of some of our most distinguished Presidents who had done hooey in politics before getting in: Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, FDR, Eisenhower.  Single term Governors, junior Senators, a General with no prior office.

Amazing how the Republicans get to qualify their pontifications by acting as if time spent being reared by patrician connected families counts.  Are they saying they're shocked because Edwards was born working class and is trying to merit his way into their blueblood aristocracy?  

The sorry fact is that most of the investigative journalism done by reporters these days is answering the phone when a "senior government official," Congressional source, or some other unidentified figure calls them.  

To me, this isn't worth even responding to, let alone going Cheney.

Let's keep our focus and conserve our energy.

Hey, we're having a showing of F 9/11 as a benefit for the Party tonight and we made it into The Blade and hence into The Note! This could enable us to open a store front two months earlier than planned.

Still seats left- 7:00 PM at the at the historic Cla-Zel in beautiful downtown Bowling Green (Ohio.) Donation of $20 ($10 for students) Many candidates will be there.

Many pubs in the area....

those who have ridden on the political fast track helps with the case for Edwards.  They all flamed out quickly.  Although Nixon did get a second act.

As for GWB, those who know anything, know that Gov of TX is exactly a taxing job, but most people are not informed enough to know all Governor positions are not created equal.  The public also gives GWB points not for genetics but for having been exposed to and involved in (he worked on his father's compaigns) politics for years before running himself.  Also even as Governor of TX he had more power than all but the most senior Senators have.

Finally - there is the issue of how many times an individual has been elected to office.  Nixon - three races before VP.  GWB - two races before POTUS.  

Edwards is clearly more qualified than GWB for anything.  But appearances matter, and on the issue of political experience as most people measure it, GWB had him beat on that score in 2000.  Plus he's now had another four years.  If the public doesn't perceive GWB's incompetence well enough at this point, the battle will be tough all the way to November.    

That's the way Republicans in the Dubya Bush era work.
Remember in 2000, how they made up lies about John Mccain and the voters bought the lies.
They tried it with Kerry already with the intern now you can bet your paycheck that they'll try it with Edwards.

Grover Cleveland was an upper New York state lawyer until 1881, when he ran for mayor of Buffalo. A year later he ran for governor of New York. Two years later he was elected President.

That's zero to President in 3 years. He was the first Democratic President after the "recent unpleasantness," the only northern Democrat to be elected between Lincoln and FDR. He served two terms, and lost the electoral college in 1888 after winning the popular vote.

Oh, and FDR had been in public office just four years before winning election in 1932. Yes, he'd been an assistant cabinet secretary in WWI, and had run for VP in 1920, but he had only been in public office four years.

Abraham Lincoln, of course, had just four years as a Congressman before he was elected President, in 1860. He lost the 1858 Senate race.

No, Fineman doesn't have a brain. Nor an encyclopedia. Nor the time to be bothered looking at one.

I can write better, I can report better, and so can you.

Fire his ass.

I've known John Edwards since 1974 and Elizabeth Edwards since 1969. There's nothing to be found. They are A++++++

makes me think that one day he too can be Vice President.

on this one earlier in the week.  Kos, you got it right, but you left out the dumbest part of this whole piece and that was the comparison between Edwards and Jeff Bridges turn as "Starman."

See it here:

http://crazyhorse.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/7/172512/6001

Let us never forget: shortly after 9-11, he called Bush "Our Boyish Knight With His Helmet of Graying Hair."  Ruminate on that for a second.  Try to keep down your lunch.  No one should mistake where this asshole stands.

Would someone please explain to me why anyone pays this retard for his opinion?

A sincere question: What's wrong with his hair these last few days ?

And does he think no one notices ?

 /other candidates that rose as fast, or faster, than Edwards -- Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Spiro Agnew and Geraldine Ferraro. /

... is a fucking brown-nosing Beltway pig.  Remember the vicious crap he continually wrote about Howard Dean?

I wrote NBC and told them that I've quit watching NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC, and I've quit reading Newsweek.

These guys are worse than Fox News Channel.  At least with Fox, you know from the frequently over-the-top content alone that you're watching a live-action cartoon.  But the NBC networks are more sinister, a highly polished malevolence.

I've always felt a Democratic boycott of these stations was long in order.

Shoot me if this has already been discussed to death, but why does Karl Rove get a free pass to remain "the little man behind the curtain"?

Doesn't he have an unexplored past? Wouldn't his daily distractions be amusing enough to provide entertainment for the rest of us?

Aren't there close-up photographs of his wife and children that we could use to identify them when we bump shoppingcarts in the grocery store?

Considering his strategic importance in our "National Dialogue", why has he been allowed so much privacy?

Why would a daily "Rove Watch" be out of the question - or, "going too far"?

Why are string-pullers not fair game?

They may not have risen as far (so far) but here are some others:

Jesse Ventura
Arnold Schwarzenegger