Then don't just repeat memes: fight fire with fire!

Fred Thompson drives a pickup truck on the campaign trail, but gets in a nice town car once the cameras are gone.

Is it Presidential or 'manly' to be in front of cameras singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

And Multiple Choice Mitt has morphed on so many issues I've lost count.

Meanwhile Edwards has a loving wife who he's been married to for 30 years.

People forget that the Clinton campaign insulted the HWBush campaign for not knowing the price of milk, for "not knowing what a grocery store scanner was" [though that story was somewhat trumped up], for lacking "the vision thing", for Dan Quayle not knowing how to spell potato, etc. Don't just complain, punch back, for crying out loud.

Didn't Huckabee and his wife throw themselves some kind of midlife shower as a means of collecting bribes?

Talk about vanity - Huckabee spent $30,000 to get his stomach stapled just so that he could lose the weight to run for president.

So now that you've identified the meme, Garance, I'm sure we can expect you to be first in line against MSM attempts to repeat and reinforce it, right? Right?

See, that wasn't so hard. Keep going!

The story line options coming out of the debate were either to point out that with only 2 exceptions the Repub candidates are all bloodthirsty wannabe torturers or that quip by by Huckabee. I think emphasizing that the most substantial contribution anybody on that stage has to offer is a Dowdesque joke doesn't work against Edwards in particular or the Democrats.

Speaking of meme theory, I'd point out that no one, really, has called the 2008 potential for Democrats a "cakewalk"; it's one thing to say that the wind is at our backs - certainly that's still operational - but no one should pretend that this will be easy. It will be a rough fight, and surely people will play the ind of dirty pool that Huckabee demonstrated last night. Still, I've said repeatedly, that one can't ignore that it's Edwards who walked himself into these issues, and he'll have to be the one to find his way out (proof, by the way, that while Romney's people push the "he's so hott" angle, it's Edwards whose arguably winning that contest, for better and for worse).

I think the more pervasive problem revealed last night is that the right and the left are talking about completely different things. While the boys in the GOP lockerrom get out the rulers to see whose anti-terror instincts are bigger/tougher/stronger, the Democrats hang out in with the Social Studies teachers and talk about a handful of domestic issues in a way that stresses making government work better.

Do I think the Democrats have a better grasp of what voters care about? Sure, but that won't matter if we all agree that the separate playing fields are okay - much as I'd like to join the general cheering about the Fox folks, I think they were the perfect people to hold the GOP debate - thoughtful, but generally in sync reporters who see the problems and the solutioons much the way the candidates do. Until someone pushes the GOP folks to discuss the Democratic issues, and the Democrats to be rather more direct on terrorism and the hard calls, we have two parallel conversations that don't meet. And we need, ultimately, one playing field here. That, it seems to me, is what we really need to fight the media to do better.

Garance -

I don't think you go nearly far enough with your point about the masculinity. The attack on Edwards has very little to do with his money, spending habits, or anything else.

The charge is simply that he is a girl. And that will be the Republicans' main line of attack against Edwards throughout the campaign.

Remember the "breck girl" charge? Rush Limbaugh has more recently come right out and said Edwards would be the first female president.

It sounds like a playground insult, and only Ann Coulter makes it sound that way (by calling Edwards a f__got) but the basic charge here is simply: We, the Republicans, are more manly than you are; you are a sissy, a girl, a woman.

This is sick, but it's what they've got, and we live in a misogynistic enough culture that it gets them a bit of traction.

"This is awful for Edwards"

Why, as soon as I read that line, did I immediately realize the author of the post was going to be GFR?

-----

Folks have been making Breck Girl-style attacks on Edwards since 1998, and it doesn't seem to have hurt him yet.

Bring it on. Every candidate has something to be parodied, and the hair attack isn't a damaging one. Counterintuitively, the 'Edwards is pretty' line actually works to his benefit in several ways.

Huckabee used the phrase to argue for his "active fair tax" proposal that would "put a "Going Out of Business" sign on the Internal Revenue Service and stop the $10 billion a year that it costs just for them to operate"

All that shows is that Huckabee doesn't know the first thing about the IRS and that this is not a novel idea. After all, look how far others got with it.

Why, as soon as I read that line, did I immediately realize the author of the post was going to be GFR?

Because she always looks on the bright side of life.

Why, as soon as I read that line, did I immediately realize the author of the post was going to be GFR?

Because she, more than any other TAPPED poster, refuses to question the press's role in repeating and reinforcing these kinds of things, and in fact seems to relish playing that role to some degree?

Just thought I'd make that explicit, in case my first post wasn't clear enough.

While the 2006 election was about Iraq and corruption, a major subtext was simply the question of whether voters were sufficiently tired of all the bullshit. We can only hope, of course, but there's at least one data point to suggest we're dealing with a more engaged electorate that isn't going to obsess over trivia like haircuts. The press, of course, will always be way behind no matter what.

Nicholas Beaudrot is correct above, but I would add one thing. We also need to take a page from Karl Rove and take our opponents strengths and turn them into weakness.

For example, Rudolph Guliani is praised for the way he handled 9-11. But what happened on that day? Hundreds of dead police and fireman. We need to paint Guliani as the guy who killed hundreds of cops because of his inept leadership.

Thompson we need to paint as an out of touch hollywood type who is not telling us the truth about his health.

Romney can't decide whether to flip or flop he does both so often.

McCain is experienced? No, he's just plain old. And who knows what happened to him in that prison. There's something off about him, no? That's why he's losing his temper all the time.

All of this sound distasteful? Too rough? It is the least we should be doing, and we should be starting now.

The meme the GOP is pushing isn't "Edwards is a girl," it's "Edwards is a little bitch." There's a bit of a difference, and anyone who's into pop culture or politics should recognize it.

Also, as for what Edwards has been able to do since '98, I'd say the list of things that *don't* burnish his "I'll stand up for you and myself" credentials (electorally/strategically) includes: losing the '04 primary, the debate with Cheney (an improvement over Lieberman, but not enough of one), letting Bill Donohue dictate his staff decisions (I realize that's contentious, but taking days to realize you should defend your staff against your opponents isn't what you do to pass Hardball 101), and reacting to Ann Coulter calling him a f----- by asking for money.

Yes, he's done some other cool stuff and stood up for what's right on some high-profile issues, but this does *not* have the feel of a political issue that's going to go away without some serious push-back, whether it comes from the campaign itself, or from angry lefty bloggers calling Mike Huckabee nasty names and ignoring the pearl-clutching complaints about the lack of "civility" in politics.

Who knew? Giuliani into opera? Not very manly.

What Democratic policies will the GOP tie to HRC's penis?
At least this should put an end to the viscious lie that she is a lesbian.

People forget that the Clinton campaign insulted the HWBush campaign for not knowing the price of milk, for "not knowing what a grocery store scanner was" [though that story was somewhat trumped up], for lacking "the vision thing", for Dan Quayle not knowing how to spell potato, etc.

How much did they have to do that, though, before the media picked up on it? did they have to at all? (I never watched cable, and rarely broadcast, news, so the questions aren't rhetorical.)

This is a pretty awful Tapped post. We learned that the GOP will play hardball next November. They may even use personal attacks.

Thanks, GFR. This is why you get paid the big bucks.

Gee, Garance -- we'd better nominate your BFF Hillary then!

Well, the "vision thing" and the misspelling of potato were in the convention speech. I suspect that some Dem campaign was responsible for pushing the story into the news. The price of milk was the only one that was purely media driven (and, I think, after the grocery scanner story).

and it doesn't seem to have hurt him yet

Really? It didn't hurt to the extent that he had to abandon any chance of reelection to the Senate, Petey?

I think the appropriate response to this is that the quip is simply false - Edwards doesn't go to a "beauty shop", the beauty shop owner comes to him!

Way to go, Garance.

Next time you roll over and play dead, at least have the decency to do it quietly.

THEY ARE AFRAID OF EDWARDS. Don't you get it?

He will destroy their party.

Chris, you and Al should go off in a corner somewhere and continue your fantasies in a more mutually-pleasing manner.

The rest of us will continue to get ready to beat Republicans in the general election - and the one who does that is the one they are the most afraid of - the one they attack with schoolyard taunts. John Edwards.

The former college football defensive back and street fighter, with a beautiful, loving wife of 30 years and a history of sticking his neck out for theless fortunate, is going to wipe the follor with any Republcian candidate they wish to put up, ESPECIALLY the former governor whose only significant accomplishment is to have stop stuffing his gullet with biscuits.

Yes, DFL, and schoolyard taunts have never hurt anyone politically in American politics.

Where's Bob Somerby when you need him?

Maureen Dowd in particular, but most of the mainstream media is every bit as responsible as the Republicans for these schoolyard taunts having traction. I look forward to the Chris Matthews gang laughing about Huckabee's quip, and its devastating effect on the Edwards' candidacy, all this week and three times on Sunday.

WOW! Another anti-Edwards piece by GFR. Seriously, when are the people are TAP going to take this persons keys away. This is getting fucking ridiculous. Every other post by GFR is a pretend "I don't support a candidate, but you're all sexist, evil, or stupid if you vote for anyone but Hillary.!", or it's a "We're in really big trouble if we nominate Edwards because the GOP will say means things about him. We all know they'd never dare say anything about Hillary!" post.

I'm seriously wondering why I ever read Tapped at this point. There are clearly little in the way of real ethics here. Hint to the editors a "No endorsing a candidate policy" isn't worth jack if people be so clearly against one candidate and so clearly for another that nobody has any doubts about their support anyway.

One other thing for DFL: I do have a fantasy: it's that your candidate and his campaign actually get a better sense of when they're being attacked and how it might look to anyone who's not already in awe of his resume (which is nice, and he'd be a great president, but here's a secret: he's going to need to do more than just wave it at Republicans to *beat* them).

What, did you look at the Kerry campaign's non-rapid-response to SBVfT and think, "Let's do that, but avoid the part where we actually call out Republicans as liars and goons two weeks later"? And Edwards is a streetfighter? It doesn't show from the advice *you*'d have him follow. I would say you must be making the big bucks to be providing such pacifist campaign strategy and I'd mean it sarcastically, but given the problems with Democratic campaigns (with a few major exceptions in the last 20 years; h/t to Soullite: yes, with the media as a nasty accomplice), it's all too plausible that Edwards *is* paying someone for advice like that.

The mouth-breathing, bed-wetting troglodytes who make up the modern GOP will continue to kick sand in our face and try to make time with our girl until we stand up and pop them in the mouth.

Hit them back.

Yes. The right response to any attack like this isn't to ignore it, and it's not to counter it, it's to attack back. Attack on something similar (I'd suggest Mitt Romney as a target) and muddy the waters.

Setting aside, for the moment, all of the as bizarre as ever "I can't stand Garance" bleating, I don't blame people for feeling frustrated; these kinds of attacks - high schoolish, negative and off point - are a real annoyance, and I don't think lefties have yet come up with a great strategy for coming back (which, unfortunately, is the problem for Edwards, like it or not). I'd love to "hit back hard" - just like in high school - but, well, just like high school, no one, and no dialogue, is improved by sinking to this sort of thing. The whole "let's call Romney and/or Giuliani effeminate too" thing only reinforces the notions of masculine stereotyping that I really thought liberals were better than. If we're going to hit hard, then it should be about moving the discussion onto our turf and our terms. That, as I said above, is the problem here: there's a parallel narrative coming from Republicans, and agreeing to their terms reinforces it. There's no ground to be gained by fighting on the turf of the guys who yell Faggot - trust me, I've been there my whole life; it's not worth it. As any queen can tell you, the best defense is being fabulous and witty... and seeming unconcerned with the namecalling. That, I think means reminding folks that Edwards is, yes, goddamned gorgeous, and by the way, also brilliant and right on the issues. Otherwise, I think what you get is the same old dance, with the same old results.

Reading weboy's comments (at 9:44) made something coalesce for me: Edwards - and for that matter, any Democrat, because *every* Democrat who's a threat will have this problem (Republican attacks; any Dem who isn't attacked by Republicans *isn't* doing his/her job) - needs to have a response for stuff like this that works on multiple levels at once: it's got to be sufficiently retaliatory and responsive to show that the candidate recognizes s/he's being attacked and will fight back, it's got to be a response that the candidate and supporters are comfortable making, and it's got to be one that isn't out of line with existing principles.

So far, most/all existing responses or ideas seem to founder on at least one of these shoals. I can't say I've got better ideas, but I think it's a start for us to admit that the current strategies are inadequate...

So, how exactly is Edwards to defeat this frame? By screwing his wife live on SNL [gotta one up Gore somehow!]

By showing the picture of giuliani in drag? By making himself look tougher? I mean, I'm actually somewhat perplexed as to how you effectively combat something like this without going totally overboard. It'd be nice, of course, if the purveyors of this garbage [I'm sure we'll hear Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd chime in on the matter] would grow up, but they won't; and ultimately they're the people who will nurture and birth this little bastard of a frame onto our political world.

so Weboy, you deny that GFR has a displayed a pattern of attacking Edwards and writing either puff pieces about Clinton, or personal attacks against those who oppose her candidacy? That's the only logical way this condescendingly labeled "Bleating" would be bizarre.

josh you appear strong by shoving your enemies face in the mud, not by playing dress up or pretending to be a horny teenager. Attack an enemy, be a real dick about it, but make sure you're on ground nobody will fault you for. Make attacks on his masculinity into an attack on his wife. Then defend her honor, and by proxy his own. That will effectively neuter this meme.

I'm sorry soullite, I just don't share your anger here - I get that people disagree with Garance (heck, I disagree with her on stuff too, especially that misbegotten porn proposal she floated), but the stuff here seems - as it often does - to have a tinge of something really ugly and mean, and yes, I find that bizarre in liberals.

I haven't chosen a candidate, and don't plan to for a while; but one things that strikes me about early Edwards supporters (as opposed to Obama supporters, who seem to adopt his same "rise above it" tenor) is how unwilling they are to contemplate any flaw or question anyone, even a well meaning Democrat, raises. I like Edwards. I think he's a great (and good looking) guy. I'm not sure he's the right Democrat to be President. I don't care who does his hair, but I do care that his operation seems unable to avoid having these kinds of issues come up, and seems flummoxed by how to get them off the table. You can yell at me - or at Garance - but that won't remove the issue. And the suggestion that attacking Republican men on masculinity is a winning approach just absolutely turns me off. And I know I won't be alone in that.

When listing the obstacles for Democrats, you accidentally omitted "people like Garance Franke-Ruta who regularly repeat and play into homophobic smears on progressive websites."

jeebus, weboy, are you using the "if you call GFR on her BS, you MUST have an woman-hating ulterior motive" defense? really?

GFR, unfortunately, has written some of the stupidest stuff on tapped. period. and i'm tired of her so-called defenders implying that her critics are somehow engaging in subtle misogony by calling her on what she writes. poppycock...

Romney tries on new policy positions like Rudy tries on women's clothes.

Weboy, I don't know who you support, really. But a lot of people have noticed GFR's... proclivity towards Hillary boosting. I'm hardly the only one. I have a slight preference for Edwards, but I tend to go back and forth. I'm not sure I really trust him, either.

To make it clear, I do dislike Hillary immensely. Perhaps you read from that that this was more a "Pro-Edwards" thing. she keeps furthering Republican attacks. she does this to help a candidate I hate. She even went so far as to say I hate her because she lacks the same genitalia as I do, when I'm fairly certain it's because she's a censor and she's pro-business.

I know the world sucks. But if we want to change things, we can't pretend that the world works in any way other than the way the world really works. My suggestion is the only one that will work under the current rules of politics. It shouldn't matter how strong Edwards seems. But it does. Ignoring that is why Democrats have lost so many Presidential elections.