A commenter in another diary wrote about the Edward's $400 haircut story and said:
...but this is the kind of thing that should not
have happened from an anti-poverty candidate
In some ways this is true, but any presidential candidate is not poor, so will be subject to something being found if someone is looking to find something. And obviously the reporters were looking for something.
I would like you to consider this possibility. The Republicans learned new campaign tactics from Karl Rove. They used tactics that were totally unexpected by Democrats and, sometimes, we still don't know how to deal with them. This happened all the time to the Democratic candidates in at least the last two election cycles and we still have not developed a good defense. Whining about it doesn't help. You have to understand the strategy.
Rove taught the Republicans and the media to attack a candidate for his/her strengths not weaknesses. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is very effective.
Look what happened to some of our past candidates and what is happening with some of the current candidates.
You think Kerry is a war hero? We will show you he is not, he is a fake hero and didn't deserve his medals.
You think Gore has integrity and is smart? We will show you he is stiff and out of touch with the common guy; further he makes up stupid lies like he invented the internet.
You think Gore is a hero and environmental champion. We will show you he is a hypocrite who uses way more energy than the average person.
You think Dean is a grassroots candidate? We'll show you he is unhinged - the scream.
You think Edwards is a populist? We will show you he is wealthy and an elitist - hence the big house and haircut stories.
You think Obama is the classic American story of integration of black and white. We will show you he is foreign and scary - the madrassa story, or he is not black enough nor white enough.
You think Obama has wonderful oratory skills. We will show you he is like those televangelists that take poor people's money. (see the Youtube)
You think Hillary is a strong woman leader? We will show you she is unfeeling, castrating, and shrill and her only qualification is being married to Bill Clinton.
But with the Republicans do the opposite. Use their weaknesses and build them up.
Bush was born with a silver spoon. We will show you he is like the average guy you want to have a beer with.
Reagan was an actor without much depth in policy. Reagan is the great communicator.
This is a deliberate strategy by the Republican smear machine in the MSM. Some attacks are outright lies and others are true with a spin. They will be subtle and disingenuous. They will not attack the candidates on substance but on image. Substance requires real analysis. This is a soundbyte world.
Edwards is a fighter who champions the little guy and won against big corporations. Therefore make him effeminate and weak like a Breck Girl, a "faggot", a lightweight and an ambulance chaser.
Edwards is the anti-poverty champion, but he needs everybody including the wealthy and the middle class to hear him. They don't listen readily to guys that look like Cesar Chavez or Dennis Kucinich(even if they are concerned about the poor), at least not as a serious presidential candidate. The haircut is important on television, and when you pay the stylist to come to you because you are travelling for 28 days it costs alot. However you really can't fight back easily. The ordinary guy who pays $10 per cut doesn't understand and judges quickly. That is why the charge is so effective.
Remember they want to make Edwards look like a hypocrite. They hate his agenda, are fearful of losing power, and are looking for ways to weaken the Democratic brand. Who do they need to not believe John Edwards? The working guy. So make John look like a snob who couldn't possibly care. Talk about his house and haircuts. The campaign listed expenses honestly but someone was digging for the gotcha.
They will dig up some more examples that we won't see coming. There is nothing we can do about it but try to be alert. Elizabeth gave good advice to the Edwards campaign to stay in regular hotels and not be extravagant because it is a populist campaign and it should be respectful of people's hard-earned donations. But something else will come up. Just watch for it.
Each candidate will have a unique and different kind of attack because they have different strengths. You may want to examine the messages already out there gaining traction that disparage your candidate. If you weaken the candidate's strength then you make him/her less viable.
This is propaganda. It works to shake trust in our own candidates. And we keep not noticing the strategy and buy into their frames. The only response to people who then repeat these concerned questions is that "of course they are looking for trivial things so you don't get your health care, etc."
There are honest questions we need to ask ourselves about each candidate. There are substantive criticisms that should be made. However, we need to examine the real data available and how each candidate does on the campaign trail. We have to sort out the propaganda from the genuine concerns. It will not be easy and may, in fact, be impossible. I invite you to consider whether the stories relate to the candidates' positions or desirable characteristics of a president, or are they distractions meant to keep us from looking at what is important.
For the Edwards' critics I ask, so who do you trust? John Edwards or the Media who is shilling for their corporate masters? What are good comebacks to the haircut story? One I saw was "It's about time the media quit focusing on Hair Care and start focusing on Health Care."
Maybe you have other responses to share either for Edwards, Obama, Hillary or any of the candidates.
Something to think about and notice. What classic rovian attacks are you aware of? Which spin are you buying into?
Crossposted at MyDD.