How do you damage a campaign? The corporate MSM knows: Get like-minded people to eat their own with a divisive issue.
Edwards' poor performance in New Hampshire's primary has been widely attributed to his remarks about Clinton's emotional moment, but the real cause may be a layer shallower than that. Voters were more likely turned off by their exposure to widespread hyperbolic rhetoric characterizing his remarks as sexist.
Even respected progressive bloggers have participated in the MSM method of degradation - Taking key situations and selected quotes, and creating a context that engages our most intense and conflicted emotions. Create a little docu-drama - part truth, part fiction, part theatrics.
"Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency."
is an opinion, not a fact. This is the fictional element, yet to many, reading it in an ABC news story makes it factual. In the MSM, this is a ploy; biting on it in the blogosphere, a mistake. How the right-wing bloggers must be filled with glee!
From: Feel the Misogyny, By Jane Hamsher, Monday January 7, 2008:
"Oh and John Edwards? Please stop being a patronizing, sexist jerk."
From: Hillary Shows Feeling, is Slammed, by Katha Pollitt at The Nation, Monday January 7:
" John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over"
And there's lots more. Thanks to a collection of stories on Edwards' reaction at Blogrunner, I found 20 opinion pieces, posted on January 8 alone, which either quoted or linked, or both, to the ABC story, adding their own commentary in the frenzy. Some fine examples:
"John Edwards took a shot at Hillary"
"Edwards comes out cockswinging"
"John Edwards is a self-centered loser"
"Edwards is someone who will say anything to attempt to win"
"Edwards showed exactly zero class by jumping on her"
"Edwards...take cheap, sexist shots like this"
"particularly classless"
"grossed out by John Edwards' related attack"
"Edwards can't open his mouth without attacking Hillary"
These all offer opinions based on nothing other than other opinions. And on it goes, like the campfire stories passed around in whispers until they bear no resemblance to the original.
TPM eventually gets it in full context in a P.S. to their parroted post, via CNN's Sasha Johnson, emphasis of what nearly everyone ignored mine:
At a New Hampshire campaign event, presidential rival John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
If anyone advising Edwards had anticipated the intent to characterize any reaction of his to Hillary's emotional moment in terms of sexism, maybe they should have advised John to treat Hillary differently because she's a woman. That could have been seen as sexist, too, because it is. Not answering may be the safest option, but then, that could be seen as evasive.
In Edwards' case, it's the campaign that's relevant, not the gender. If you look at Clinton and Edwards in terms of their political relationship, you will see contention. If you look at them in terms of gender, you will see sexism, and you're being sexist.
Equating Edwards' opportunism with sexism is enabling the smear which the MSM, aided by participation in their hyperbolic construct, was fishing for.
Hillary was equally opportunistic in her response to the uproar, utilizing her emotional moment which baited the hook. After opening with appeals about "our kids" and "our country", without pause she launched into right or wrong, ready or not ready, some know and some don't know tactical comparisons, topped with an America "spinning out of control" vision of the consequences to making the wrong choice.
We've all heard that opportunistic ploy repeatedly in the last few years, right? Why are some of us now helping the corporate MSM utilize it to disable the campaign of their primary foe, whose policy proposals and standing in the race make him the best hope to challenge their power?