Today Chris Matthews Joins Ugly and Desperate Refrain against Edwards:
A John Edwards presidency would represent a greater populist movement. This scares people who have spent capital accumulating political power. The evidence of this fear continues to accumulate. We must pay close attention, because John Edward's enemies are telling you a great deal about him, substantively.
Lacking any real substantive attack on John Edwards, big media has decided to attack the Populist on new grounds; that he is occasionally tardy for speeches. This qualifies as a small background news story at the New York Times, but it qualifies as huge news shaped into a weapon at GE/NBC. Chris Matthews didn’t just ‘cover’ this small new item today, he turned it into his Waterloo. He introduced the ‘Edwards is Tardy’ story with an lengthy and well-written homage to the greatness of the Iowa voters, they wait in long lines to hear speeches, meet candidates, etc.. It sounded great as I watched it live.... Then, at the close of this homage, Matthews essentially said: ‘but there is ONE candidate that doesn’t respect these people: John Edwards’. I looked back at the screen in quiet disbelief. What did I just hear?
Having a DVR, I went back 30 seconds...
"You would think that someone would show respect for these folks (ta-ta-ta)..... ..but not John Edwards." (See Handball transcript today for exact language, link to video transcript in comments below)
Today, the New York Times ran a story about Edwards' tardiness and they compared his tardiness to Bill Clinton.... ("like Bill Clinton.. before him"). That's not so bad, the only big candidate without secret service. However, Matthews breathlessly turned this little background story into an out-sized Edwards attack. He dramatically turned to the camera and attempted Keith Olbermann sincerity. ".....not John Edwards". After this personal blast, Matthews immediately ran for cover....the New York Times. But, the Times story made no personal judgment. It compared Edwards’ tardiness to Bill Clinton, in fact. Quite a difference two stories make when one mixes motives.
Today, in my opinion, Matthews earned all mockery that was heaped upon him at the Daily Show (and to think I defended Matthews). Matthews lowered himself irreparably today.
Imagine running for president, really caring about people, working 18-hour days, to have a network-news hack tell people you don’t respect them! Matthews just wrote a book about politics and his network and him wildly promoted it. He explained how and why people should be inspired to politics, partly. He is why people don’t. After sweat and toil attempting to reach people, someone like Matthews will use their corporation's power to side-swipe you. This was an awful attack by a man and a network testing their relevancy and legitimacy everyday.
The establishment dislike of Edwards is not news, but this particular commentary is far too revealing and like Greenspan's attack, is worth independent notice. The usual method of dealing with an appealing populist candidate is to ignore and marginalize them. But this strategy isn't working in Iowa. Therefore, they must turn and face John Edwards directly. Suddenly, the populist candidate doesn’t respect people, says NBC, breathless and shrill.
This is no surprise to populists. The establishment Democrats and Rupublicans mutually fear Edwards. They fear the purity, consistency and populism of his message. They fear he wins, and worse, they fear his message shapes Congress and the party. They’re watching the deteriorating economic numbers everyday, fearing the numbers will catch up to Edwards’ message now. They hope to hold it back so as to not fuel Edwards’ campaign. The Federal Reserve’s keeps pumping huge, inflationary non-productive cash infusions, keeping the trouble at bay now (paying for it later), while even Greenspan comes out to attack Edwards.
They’re also newly worried because a union that represents the least among us (the SEIU) is helping Edwards indepenently in Iowa. Who do these poor union members think they are? They can’t learn to play 'our system'. They don't get federal reservee infusions while also being the largest donors to PAC's and parties. Can the establishment really cry foul, with sincerity, that the least among us are playing in their political backyard? The people who clean our tables and wash our dishes are spending a little cash to have a political voice. The establishment cries foul to induce you, hopefully, to react and create two standards of monetary power in politics. One for them and one for everyone else. Don't talk about their power: that's the first rule. They have made a silent sport of ignoring the mutual, interchangible donors within the mainstream of both partes.
Their strategy of ignoring Edwards has backfired in Iowa. I sense this has lots of people bothered in the closing weeks. The populists are making a move. The entrenched interests are reacting directly. Could those representing the least among us really inherit Iowa?
You can feel their concern by listening to their attacks.