John Edwards is asked about the issues facing women in America at a high school town hall in New Hampshire…by a high school student.
On Sunday, I highlighted the results from several new studies regarding press coverage of the Presidential race in 2008 — and the public’s dissatisfaction with the nonsubstantive, pretend horse race qualities and manufactured brouhahas that have come to represent what we call “newsworthy” these days. Something about the press role in shaping that horse race in a recent campaign vignette article in TNR caught my eye yesterday:
…Ask Edwards’s strategists why he’s so far labored to make the Democratic contest a three-way race, and they’ll cite two reasons: money and the press. To this point, they say, the race has been defined by two celebrity candidates who’ve raised ungodly amounts of cash, with whom the press has been endlessly preoccupied.
The money problem Edwards believes is surmountable. Beyond optimism per se, Edwards’s legal career repeatedly taught him that fair-minded people can be persuaded by a compelling message even when the other side has nearly unlimited resources, as was frequently the case with the companies he sued.
As for the press, well, that’s another story. “The difference between a jury and politics is that the jury is a very controlled environment. … Equal access to the jury–that’s a battle I win,” he says. “Politics is different, because the media controls access. And the result is, if every nanosecond they’re talking about Senator Clinton or Senator Obama or another candidate, then it’s hard to be heard.” Then he breaks into a smile: “The thing that’s different is the debate. … If all America knew about the eight of us is what they saw in the debate on Tuesday night, or in the debates in general, you would see very different numbers.”
Now, this isn’t just applicable to Edwards, it is all the other candidates in the field as well who haven’t gotten nearly the press that the Clinton and Obama “horse race” has. And, to be fair, Edwards has gotten for more press than Dennis Kucinich on his best day…so this is all fairly relative in a lot of ways. But when a lot of your press coverage focused on your haircut and not on your stance on…pick a subject…I’m almost tempted not to count any of that just on principle.
All this to say that the public sees what they are directed to see by a press corps that makes its decisions on what to cover based on sometimes very sensational and often far-too-manufactured criteria based on print sales or ratings wars…and far too infrequently based on what is good for the public or what we really need to know.
I was thinking about this last night in the context of the 20 million single women that WVWV estimates did not vote in the 2004 elections. It isn’t as though politics doesn’t impact their lives. Hell, all I have to say is “Supreme Court Justices” and you guys could rattle off a whole host of cases that we’ve discussed in the past year that have immediate impact on a range of everyday issues. And a presidential election has the power to make enormous changes on the court where there are vacancies. (Let there be no more for the next two years, please…)
There has to be some way to energize people to vote. By not doing so, enormous opportunities for forcing changes in our system simply dissipate. For women, this upcoming election can have enormous long-term consequences on a whole range of issues, just based on Supreme Court justice nominees and the fact that the next President will likely have one if not two bites at that apple. This is huge. But how do you get that across? How do you energize people to vote their interests? And how do you break through the idiotic “who would you rather have a beer with” tone of so much reporting?
We need changes, not some continued shaping of the facts to fit the preconceived narratives. And we need it fast.
(Note to any reading press folks: This? Not so much. [H/T Digby])
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Zed!
Duo.
Thanks, Christy. This is the point I was trying to make downstairs: voters WANT this sort of coverage — candidates talking about issues, not in the controlled, artificial environment of the televised debates, where they also spend a percentage of their time trying to tear down the other candidates, but in an ask-and-answer format like this.
Getting Tweety, Pumpkinhead and all the other “media hands” out of this is a GREAT step as well.
Crickey, here we go with the bird flu again…something must be up….sigh!
Is there a profile of the types of women who don’t vote? If so, what do they have in common regarding activities? Where do they go? What do they do? With that type of information, one could try to make information available to them via flyers and such that points out what the stakes are…Just my 2 cents…
Wow, didn’t realize this was just put up…
Good thoughts here. Would love to energize this base!
This was EPU’d but I thought many of you would find it interesting:
http://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?cm=zogby
Is anyone here active with the League of Women Voters? What has happened with them lately, and is there an opportunity here?
I can sympathize to a point with John Edwards when he says “The difference between a jury and politics is that the jury is a very controlled environment. . . Equal access to the jury–that’s a battle I win. . . . Politics is different, because the media controls access.”
Once upon a time, John, once upon a time. These days, the “media” is a lot bigger than just the Sunday Talking Heads and the Dead Tree Media association members.
Christy, your open invitation to the Democratic candidates to come chat with us voters at the ‘Lake still stands, doesn’t it? Equal access — Edwards’ description of the courtroom — is what we’re all about here when we talk politics. Dodd has been by, as has Clinton. Why the others haven’t taken you up on your offer is a mystery.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d think that a presidential candidate of the Democratic Party would love to have two hours of back-and-forth conversation with a community of passionately engaged politically progressive voters.
Come on Iowa, get Edwards out my way to NH with a win.
LS @ 4
When I was young, many women would say that they left that sort of thing to their husbands. They seemed to feel that men knew best about politics. Can you imagine that today? Well, yes, I can. Of course when I was young people were still drawing on cave walls.
Edwards certainly has a point– if it weren’t for the debates, who would even know that there were more than 3 Democrats running for President? But of course as the Dodd-meter shows, even the debates don’t guarantee equal time.
For example, Kucinich so far has gotten little face time in the debates except to ask him about flying saucers. Maybe since his impeachment, he’ll get a little more time in the next debate. But as with Dodd and the FISA “hold”, they get a good bounce for a few weeks, and then its back to business as usual.
At the beginning of each debate, each candidate should be alotted the same amount of clock time, and when they’ve used it up, that’s it. Their microphone is turned off. That would help even things up a bit.
Bob in HI
As for Edwards coverage – I hear almost as much DK (to make fun of him), and surely more Ron Paul (the phenomenon).
When did politics die? Wonder if Tweety had a moment when he was writting his book that people like him (and him) had destroyed politics (talking about issues, etc) and replaced it with verbal puke (talking about pants-suits & “Chinese” clapping).
So true.
Issa’s rival got absolutely no press last cycle. She was just ignored.
Probably a little too far left for the district, she is now working Kucinich’s campaign, but still.
HEY PEANUTBUTTER, want to go to the event in Anaheim that John in Sacramento mentioned last thread at #57? Saturday?
peanutbutter @ 5
The Mario Caucus? *g
Ecce homo!
OT, Dan Froomkin has a great column today about the 5 million missing email caper at the Blight House. Dramatis personae include the one and only Patrick Fitzgerald.
C&L
Does this energize anyone? It really pisses me off and I am just an xy. (It’s my mother’s fault.)
Sorry-OT but this is too good not to pass on…
California Democratic Party to Consider Censuring Senator Feinstein
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-11-12 21:20. Congress
A resolution has been created to censure Senator Feinstein for her outrageous votes in the last two weeks as a member of the judiciary committee. There are many other votes that she has taken that have made many of us wonder when she became the Joe Lieberman of the West. If you know any people who are E-board delegates and who will attend the CDP E-board meeting this coming weekend, please contact them and ask them to vote for the resolution which follows:
Whereas the Democratic Party stands firmly against racism in any of its manifestations and for gender equality, and Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his record of clear racism and gender discrimination; and
Whereas the Democratic Party abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places, yet Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Mukasey as United States Attorney General – thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a men who refuses to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture, or to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture; and
Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has worked to oppose the policies and principles of our party.
Therefore be it resolved that Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party of California expresses its disappointment at, and censure of Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28655
tw3k @ 13
*g*
Heck why not? A party that knows how to party?
redx @ 11
When Tweety was being “interviewed” by his wife during his 10th anniversary games, he actually showed a hint of self awareness and recognized that he is subject to the ludicrous mancrushes. Not enough to try to change but I was astounded that he even recognized that it was inappropriate.
Thank you Christy.
It is obvious from the above clip why the MSM/Repugs are scared silly of this guy. The rovoid’s nightmare is Edwards as the nominee. Edwards has no skeletons in his closet. He has been part of the national election process twice now and the MSM press nasties can not find any incidents such as tap dancing in the toilet or sucking the toes of a Louisiana whore to ddamn him with. If he were to become the nominee he would have to stay out of small planes other than that he would be a shoe in to take the WH.
For full disclosure I do support Edwards and I do volunteer a couple of hours a week for Edwards. Of course living in NH almost everyone I know is working on one or another campaign.
Loo Hoo @ 12
I was thinking about that, but I can’t find out anything about how much it costs, if it does? No info on registration?
Do you have the link handy? I seem to have misplaced it :-P
oh wait…last thread…57…gimme a moment…
nomolos @ 19
Whats the best way to help Edwards out in NH?
OT????
link
I am not sure what is going on but it is not good for anyone.
John Edwards to me is more honorary woman, than any other candidate I can think of. Honorary because he gets it, and its an honor to be a woman.
Moveon.org wants us to to tell our Reps to tell the Chimp NO.
Steve-AR @ 23
redx @ 22
Call the local Edwards office and volunteer. There are lots of things to do. The same goes for other candidates.
I think the arrogance we see (and hate) in so much of the Washington is exactly due to their knowing that they control access and thus control the fate of individual candidates. Their two greatest triumphs were subverting Al Gore’s run and demolishing Howard Dean’s.
I think this is why Hillary is trying so hard to co-opt them. She sees the situation as unchangeable in the short run, so she has to live with it. It’s the same position her husband took as President. I think that’s one of the things that makes us as reformers so uncomfortable with her.
If Edwards can break through to the point where there is a hung convention, there may be a chance of breaking the pundit monopoly of who gets heard. They can say what they want, but the delegates will be listening to the candidates and their reps, and that will be all that counts. And they will report what they heard to reporters, and what our candidates are like will get out to the public in a way that will be impossible for the MSM subsequently to suppress.
alank @ 14
Thanks for the link!
If Congress can ever get their hands on these emails, it will be the Nixon tapes all over again. Whether they get them or not may depend on new AG Mukasey?
Bob in HI
Yes! we need to talk about the candidates and their postion on issues. From what I watch on the news I know that every Dem wants to end the war but chances are I would not know that Hilary, Obama and Edwards want to leave behind some troops.
Just by watching the news I know that all the Dems want healthcare. But I would not know who had the best plan.
We don’t have to endorse anyone but we can compare and contrast the candidates stands on the issues.
Again I am inclined to be soft on Dodd. . Although I would like to see Edwards edge ahead.
bobschacht @ 28
Emails missing in Texas too, and it goes back to W:
http://www.statesman.com/searc…..errye.html
I keep trying to figure out who I like for president. Going through the list, looking back on my past choices who lost, trying to figure out where I went wrong in the choosing. Sort of a game. It’s awful. I keep choosing people who mostly lose.
So now, like a cat with a rolled up piece of paper, I walk past Edwards, stop, turn around, see if he’s moved, go back, give him a tap, walk away again. Look back.
This cycle I keep tapping and patting at Edwards. Vain? Too soft? Too much of a one-note? Yeah, well, maybe. But so what? Does that matter?
He’s beat the big guys in the courtroom, and that counts for tough, really tough. Quick and tough.
Tap, tap, tap.
Elizabeth. Hmmm. A winner if there ever was one. Tap, tap.
And then those speeches he gives, here and there, spontaneous raps. Tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.
Edwards keeps looking better and better.
Well the media has a way of making Edwards look like a light-weight. I chalk it up to a lot of suggestive coverage, sort of like when Tim Russert asked Kucinich whether he saw UFOs during that dreadful debate. Even the debates seem unfairly managed. How to counteract that? Lots of on ground work and persuasion phone calls. I am pretty sure the only way to reach people is face to face. I don’t know how much the candidates are doing that. In other words, they really need to get out the volunteers.
I like Edwards, and that clip is a good example of why.
So now you’ll forgive the OT. I’m listening to Al Jazeera English TV on another window. They just finished an in-depth story about Cambodian politics & economics, the sort of thing you’d never hear anywhere else in English, including BBC. Must spend more time here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/N…..62E31A.htm
teedawg @ 32
If I may from 35 years of presidential elections, I never look back to see “where I went wrong.” My choice does not always make it to the nomination and even more rarely do I vote for the winning ticket in the general election. What I do, is look at the candidates and find the one that I am most comfortable with and most reflects where I am in my life today. That is all I can do.
Pardon me for reposting this and going OT, but, I think it might be important.
A link to Investigation ReOpened in Domestice Spying Situation.
Four days after Mukasey is sworn in?
Forgive me if someone already posted this and I missed it.
I believe if having the first viable female candidate for President on the ballot doesn’t get women to the polls, nothing will. That may be good or bad, depending on your perspective. But many more women should show up at least.
Well, I am hoping that Hillary’s repeat gaffs of planting questions will now start to unravel her “inevitability” crap from the press and Edwards and Obama will be able to force open that crack and run for the nom.
Ann in AZ @ 37
This may well be true but not necessarily to vote for HRC. A lot of women, this house knows, in NH are pretty negative about HRC many saying that having a bad woman candidates is worse than no woman candidate. For instance would you vote for Maggie Thatcher?
I think a fair number of those that the MSM poll system counts as voters for HRC are actually supporters of a woman candidate but not HRC. Frankly I doubt whether she will win in NH.
Anybody read that last link of this post/ Look, I’m not a blogger but I imagine it takes quite a bit of time and effort to pull together a post. Now, how in the name of Christ could anyone spend that time and effort on a post comparing Jenna Bush and Chelsea Clinton – a post clearly aimed at assisting in the Jenna rehabilitation (I mean her image, not her)?? Boooogles my mind. I means it’s just utter who-gives-a-shit crap.
Praedor Atrebates @ 38
I am scared that HoJoe-lite will win the nomination to tell you the truth. His whole talk of reaching across the partisan divide, well stinks like Holy Joe, his mentor.
I asked David Bonior, Edward’s national campaign manager if John Edwards would spend time at firedoglake. I was told by his local rep that they would seriously consider it (FWIW). Will write more when they get back to me.
Jane’s upstairs with the mortgage mess:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..gage-mess/
teedawg @ 32
Edwards is the real deal — I have met him, spoken with him and he looks you in the eye when he answers you.
He reminds me of FDR. (And he’s got my vote.)
Heard somebody else say that about him “looking you in the eye.” prob’ly comes from addressing juries. Not that it’s a bad thing. I like lawyers and I like Edwards and wished he were doing a better and not a victim of this media circus. But who knows? Sometimes it’s about expectations. You guys know this, I’m not saying anything you don’t know. So if the mainstream press is giving him short shrift but he’s connecting with the peoples in Iowa and NH one-on-one, he’ll beat the media expectations and could catch some good press and get some momentum. Other people – Christy comes to mind most notably – have been saying this here. That’s the best case scenario. I’m not writing off Edwards yet. And when other candidates start to drop out, he may attract alot of their people.
Jim Clausen @ 42
An interview like Chris Dodd did would be good.
nomolos @ 39
You said exactly what I meant. Whether you like Hillary or not, women are more likely to vote, some for her, some against her. It is kind of odd that older women her own age seem to be against her, whereas younger single women tend to like her.
What tees me off is that the media believe that older women don’t like Hillary because she “stood by her man” and we’re all such women’s libbers that we hate her for it. I don’t know about anyone else, so I can’t speak for all the women my age, but I know that her and Bill’s relationship really doesn’t enter into my judgment of her at all. I’m not fond of her policies.
Originally I didn’t think she was electable, and even if she is, her stand on Iraq is a total turn off to me from the fact that she voted for the AUMF to the fact that she won’t say she’s sorry she did. Then she voted for Kyl/Leiberman, and I remember that she did a few other things that reinforced my already bad attitude toward Hillary. That’s not gonna change, even if I end up stuck with her because whatever she is, she’s better than Rudy or Mitt.
Excellent stuff, Christy!
If we can’t get a big turnout for our side this year, then I don’t know when we can.
Which Presidential Candidate Works With A Hedge Fund?