Reading The Pictures: Taking Aim At Edwards

In light of the recent Bhutto assassination and the fact that Edwards is resuscitating a subject that seems to have been politically disappeared, this image is really disturbing.

The photo accompanies an article yesterday by controversial NYT writer, Michael Gordon, outlining John Edwards's just announced proposal for an accelerated troop pullout from Iraq. The article, however, is not a news story so much as it is a mugging.

In the fifth paragraph, Mr. Gordon takes a now familiar dig at Edwards by describing how Elizabeth Edwards (described as John's "political partner"), who was listening in on the interview, felt the need to underscore the candidates own points for him.

At the beginning of paragraph six, Mr. Gordon feels compelled to point out that Mr. Edwards's plan "is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders."

Mr. Gordon uses paragraph fifteen to emphasize that Mr. Edwards has never visited Iraq, while immediately undermining his attack with the fact that the Pentagon only allows visits by Congress members and Governors. (Maybe a subtle dig over the fact that Edwards left Congress?)

In paragraph sixteen, Gordon makes an issue of Edwards's phone call to Musharraf after the Bhutto assassination as John seeking "to highlight his knowledge of foreign policy." The writer also finds it odd that Edwards didn't mention Iraq in his Sunday campaign appearances "save for a denunciation of greedy military contractors." (The write up leaves it unclear, however, if the "greedy" reference belongs to Edwards or Gordon.)

In paragraph seventeen, the writer deems to point out that Edwards was actually able to speak "comfortably about the subject [of Iraq] ... without notes or help from policy advisers."

In paragraphs eighteen through twenty-two, Gordon turns into doom-sayer and Pentagon mouthpiece, warning that: "American military commanders have publicly cautioned that a rapid withdrawal of troops risks a new escalation of sectarian violence." Also citing a National Intelligence Estimate, he warns that Mr. Edwards's plan would "probably lead to 'massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement'. " In both cases, however, Gordon blurs the distinction between removing troops in general as opposed to troop specifically engaged in training, as Edwards proposes.

And in paragraph twenty-three, Gordon actually makes himself, and his ego, a subject of the story, reporting how Mrs. Edwards "politely chided this reporter for failing to ask about Mr. Edwards's plan to train some Iraqi forces outside Iraq."

So, what are we to make of this photograph? Is it possible Edwards prevents hostile reporters from gaining any more than key hole access to his appearances? Or maybe Iowa Lakes Community College, where this event was held, really is on a lake and the campaign event was held on a boat -- this scene coming by way of a porthole.

If it's not one of those explanations, or else a cheap joke on "fade to black," then Edwards reads like a target to me.

Edwards Calls for Quick Pullout of Troops Training Iraqi Forces (NYT)
Update From Breck World (or: Who's Wearing John's Pants?) (BNN)
Michael Gordon Outdoes Judith Miller (Joseph Palermo/HuffPo)

For more of the visual -- including all the hijinks from Iowa -- visit BAGnewsNotes.com.

(h/t: nightbird. image: Yana Paskova for The New York Times. December 31, 2007. nytimes.com)

Comments

[glitzqueen]

Terrifying image. It's crossed my mind before now that Edwards is running a risk as much as a race, but to see it so graphically presented is a shock, anyway.

This is the leader we urgently need -- and the candidate the corporatists desperately need to stop.

Besides being damn right, he's a very brave man.

[lboucher]

The problem HRC has is her campaign stands for nothing. Obama stands for change and Edwards stands for helping the lower and middle classes.
The only point HRC seems to make is she should be President because she is entitled to the position. She feels entitled to the Presidency by the fact that she lived in the White House and wants to move back into the mansion and have the privileges that come with living there once again for eight more years. Needless to say the public and electorate could care less about indulging her standard of housing and ego needs.

[outnow]

I read John Edwards's issue-by-issue proposals on his website. His position paper is some eighty pages of concrete proposals on health care coverage, taxation, education, defense and security proposals, and other domestic issues such as the media consolidation.

As a lawyer for thirty years, I am very experienced in insurance coverage and tort litigation. With that background, it is obvious why the media and the proposals would overhaul much of the legal provisins which prop up the moneyed elites in media, the MIC, and many other monopolies and businesses which have managed to exempt themselves from the Sherman Anti-trust Act, SEC regulations, The Public Utilities Holding Act, and many other oversight and regulatory agencies set up by the New Deal.

Since Ronald Reagan came into office, the lower and middle class has become poorer with respect to the very wealthy in American and around the world. Therefore, we now know and can prove the tax cuts do not stimulate reinvestment in the manufacturing base in America. Wealth does not trickle down.

The massive upward movement of wealth during Clinton was doubled during Bush, Jr.

Hillary and Obama can be defeated or Co-opted by the establishment so Kristol and Will support Obama. Edwards would change America for the benefit of the lower and middle classes. Thus, he posses the greatest threat to the pundits and talking heads who receive salaries of upwards of a million dollars per year. In days past, reporters were working people with middle incomes.

Insurance companies, investment bankers, commercial bankers, and defense and security contractors fear Edwards because he knows how to change America back to what it used to be with a strong manufacturing base.

Hillary and Obama are supporters of NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO and the MIC. Obama even wants tort reform and to "fix" social security, all Republican talking points. These two would effectively destroy the last chance to save this country - and they are both easy to defeat in the general election.

[enoughalready]

The numbers show Edwards has the greatest chance of beating any GOP candidate in the 2008 election. That's the reason for the darts!

Edwards 2008!

[kellygrrrl]

John and Elizabeth Edwards are the absolute best hope for the future of America.
That a New York journo doesn't get that proves further the laughability of the neo-con term "Liberal Media"

perhaps there was time when the Media was Liberal. But that was before they turned into stenographer puppets seeking party invites and a SAG card.

[Nutcase]

Such attention means that, despite the MSM concentration on Clinton and Obama, Edwards is competitive and they see a need to knock him down. His visibility is messing up their vision for the world.

[sigrid13]

"probably lead to 'massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement'."

Oh, like that isn't happening under the current plan.

FYI, oddly enough, ILCC is not on a lake; although the porthole idea was a bit of a stretch anyway.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Once upon a time, I was going along in life without a care in the world, thinking that Lawyers were bad just like everyone else did.
Then something happened. A large company did something to me that they should not have done.
I was defenseless against them. Reluctantly, I talked to a Lawyer about my case. I found out that he had helped others like me and I called them. He took on this multinational corporation and won for me.
Of course, he took some of the money as payment for his services. He had to hire others who were experts in their field because he admitted that he was not an expert in every field. His job was to represent me against this giant. That is the free market system, but the settlement I got was more than I could have gotten by myself.
I am ready to hire another Lawyer to help me now. John Edwards has the experience in the right field to take on the job at hand. He can hire others who are experts to help him in areas where he is not. Experts like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson come to mind.
These big corporations have been able to write their own rules for long enough. Lets hire a Lawyer to help us.

[TekBoss]

I am voting for Edwards and Gordon can't stop me!

[Caniculus]

To my untrained eye -- I am not a photojournalist -- this photo seems outrageously non-journalistic. In fact, it seems more like subliminal advertising. Was it taken through some type of handmade filter? Or was it Photoshopped? Either way, it is not photojournalism. I don't even think it could be construed as documentary.

As subliminal advertising, it is even poor. Aside from the obvious ways the photo makes Edwards appear to be small and surrounded by darkness, if you zoom in on the photo you'll notice that Edwards' eyes are closed. Blindness or tunnel vision seems to be a definite and intentional overt theme.

The meaning of the phallus-shaped microphone pressed close to the lips is laughably obvious, exploited by every heavy metal band that ever existed. Still, in a photo of a presidential candidate, it can have negative unconscious effect. (Just curious, but has anyone seen a photo in a respectable national newspaper of Senator Clinton with a microphone pressed to her lips?)

Lastly, certainly the most subliminal aspect of the photo I notice, does anyone else also see (at this resolution) a strange ghostlike apparition in the blurry upper right quadrant of the keyhole? It's formed by a combination of Edwards' hand, the head of the man immediately behind the hand, and the arc of darkness? To me, it looks like the hooded head of a KKK member.

I would suggest that in an undoctored journalistic photo, this latter would be a coincidence of lighting and position, like the famous face on Mars. However, in a contrived image like this, everything must be intentional. To the unconscious mind, is this an aspersion on Edwards southern roots and a subliminal link to racism?

Shame on the NY Times for using this photo. I wonder if professional photojournalists would agree that use of this photo merits a formal editorial investigation.

[mivogo]

Why are all the corporate powers (left and right) either attacking or ignoring John Edwards?
Why does Fox News say nice things about Obama and smash Edwards as a "class warfare" joke?

Why do old-line liberals love Hillary and Obama and yawn at Edwards?

Why do the Democrats keep losing to non-entities like George Bush?

Because they talk only to each other, are out of touch,and think John Kerry is a regular guy.

If Edwards doesn't win the nomination, the Democrats will LOSE. Half of the nation wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstance, and the Repubs will make mincemeat of Obama HUSSEIN.

And on November 5th, the Dems will whine about losing another close election that should have been a romp and how dirty the Repubs play, as the country continues down the toilet.

VOTE FOR EDWARDS.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

[GuiltyByStander]

Whatever you might think of Edwards this behavior by the NYT -- on top of the truly awful reporting it has done on the campaign so far -- makes it look like a has-been. I used to look forward to a good Sunday edition binge, but I just don't trust it now.

After Paul Krugman, whose opinions I like, admitted to a Des Moines library meeting that the "pundits prefer it to be a two-horse race," and that he had not even read the health insurance proposals made by Joe Biden -- or the other ignored candidates -- but was happy to get into fine detail on what was wrong or right about the others, I gave up.

If god had wanted us to read newspapers, he wouldn't have invented the internet.

[Kane]

If Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, David Letterman, Robin Williams, John Elway, Vince Vaughn, Kathy Griffin, cast members of the Daily Show, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders can find a way to visit the troops in Iraq, doesn't it seem likely that a former senator who argued for and voted for the Iraq war could find a way to visit Iraq if he really wanted to?

The fact that Edwards has not found the time to visit the very troops he helped send to Iraq is telling.

[joeseomc]

I am surprised this TIMES fella didnt portray John Edwards as the evil ambulance chaser. That must be the role of the Republican pols instead.

It is no surprise to see another TIMES reporter attack anyone opposed to Corporate American fascism. After all, William Kristol has a contract
and will perform accordingly.

[Pippilin]

Well, consider the source here -- the good old NY Times. It never could and never did do anything but criticize the winner of the 2000
Presidential election, Al Gore. Its Judy Miller helped to convince the nation that
invading Iraq was a good thing. It just hired Bill Kristol to write a column.
We need to face the fact that the MSM have a
vested interest in seeing that truly fair and balanced ideologies don't get into the White House. We also need to stop giving the MSM so much control over our own judgment and
decision-making.