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

[JoeSun]

Edwards is fake.

It's just that simple.

[texanna]

I think you can gauge the level of the threat by the level of the response to it. So, the Bushies and NeoNuts have really started to go over the top with Edwards. They've moved way past the ridiculous and silly hair issue on to more threatening images and dire, scare-the-masses-silly diatribes. Guess it's not just a Hillary vs. Obama race anymore, no matter what the race horse coverage of the corporatist media would have us believe.

[misslily]

No one with money and/or power wants to give Edwards any type of good press cause they know that if the working class were to actually hear what this guy has planned for our country, they'd vote for him in a heartbeat. So instead we get articles like this NYT piece (of something) and continued discussions about the price of his haircut (anyone bother asking how much Hill pays for her 'do? No? Didn't think so.).

[SonnyBono]

Let's see - the New York Times just hired Bill Kristol - that symbol of moderate thinking - and oh, yes, our military leaders - most of whom caved in to the Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al - and proceeded with a plan they knew was going to fail - these people are unhappy with John Edwards???

Maybe Mr. Edwards is doing somethings right? Maybe we should be paying attention instead of believing that Hillary Clinton has everything locked up - now I like Senator Clinton, up to a point - I mean, anyone that has to get a focus group and a poll before she says "good morning" well, you got to worry about that.

Sometimes you have to judge people by the enemies they create and the establishment seems to be upset by Mr. Edwards - maybe that's is reason enough to listen to his message without the MSM filter.

PS - I like the idea of Elizabeth Edwards as First Lady much more than Bill Clinton and I voted for him (twice).

[dori]

Chalk up another NYT hit job.

[gulopartisan]

The likelihood that any candidate who successfully challenges the "military-industrial complex" for the Presidency will be the target of assassins is 100%. The likelihood that they will be successful depends on the integrity of our government.