I think the press corps (rightly) suspects Edwards is empty of substance because it is sick of hearing the same goddam speech about the little girl who can't afford a coat. They know that this is largely bullshit-- the poverty problem in America isn't lack of opportunity, it's the prevalence of dysfunction. If there are little girls without coats it's because their mamas are too busy running up cell phone bills and smoking crack and producing more children by more guys they aren't married to, not because the Dust Bowl came back and there's no help for the working man. They sense that he's not willing to say anything like that and, more to the point, that the policies he recommends are not particularly well thought through and might very well harm the poor more than help them.

Edwards is still a man who sees the race in terms of making a closing argument that wins, not in terms of making policies that he'll have to implement and live with. Like it or not, the press identifying phonies who may be rich enough to run but don't have the substance is an important part of every primary.

Wow. Whatever I was going to say here about Edwards' treatment by the press has been completely wiped out by Mike G's comment.

I mean, if we're going to have to talk about welfare queens and single moms having too much sex instead of the press deciding that a candidate doesn't deserve fair treatment because "they don't like him," I don't see what hope he's got.

Edwards is fucked five ways from Sunday either way. He's either a shitty candidate or he's got a shitty platform.

"I think the press corps (rightly) suspects Edwards is empty of substance because it is sick of hearing the same goddam speech about the little girl who can't afford a coat."

Bullshit. This is wrong on two counts: the first is that Edwards has given far more than just one "goddam [sic] speech" and the second is that all campaigns stress certain themes and come back to them time and time again. To single out Edwards, as you have done, simply confirms Scott's point.

"They know that this is largely bullshit"

No, actually, they don't, for the simple reason that it isn't.

"the poverty problem in America isn't lack of opportunity, it's the prevalence of dysfunction. If there are little girls without coats it's because their mamas are too busy running up cell phone bills and smoking crack and producing more children by more guys they aren't married to"

LOL.... Here we go again: the same old "welfare queen" crap that the right have been trotting out over and over again, ad nauseam, wholly unsupported by any data.

"They sense that he's not willing to say anything like that"

"Sense?" So they're supposed to report on what they "sense" he would or would not say, not on what he actually says? Again, thanks for confirming Scott's point.

"and, more to the point, that the policies he recommends are not particularly well thought through and might very well harm the poor more than help them."

If true, and I don't believe it is, then it should be trivially easy for them to show this, rather than talking about $400 haircuts. If they were able to show this, and lord knows, I'd welcome such analysis since it's been sadly lacking, nobody here would complain.

"Edwards is still a man who sees the race in terms of making a closing argument that wins, not in terms of making policies that he'll have to implement and live with."

And now you're a mind reader? This is just sad.

"Like it or not, the press identifying phonies who may be rich enough to run but don't have the substance is an important part of every primary."

But that isn't what they're doing, as Scott and others have pointed out. This was a pathetic argument. Is this really the best you can do?

"Like it or not, the press identifying phonies who may be rich enough to run but don't have the substance is an important part of every primary."

Yeah, they have been absolutely crucifying Romney and Guiliani....

Edwards' haircut may not speak to the kind of president he'd be, but I do think it speaks to the kind of presidential candidate he'd be. Namely, that he can't keep in check the kind of behavior that provides great fodder for the right-wing noise machine and the lazy press to caricature him.

It would be either willfully naive or just plain dumb to deny that it's bad politics to campaign on a "war on poverty" while simultaneously spending hundreds of dollars on grooming, not to mention his ostentatious showpiece house

Like it or not, the press identifying phonies who may be rich enough to run but don't have the substance is an important part of every primary.

Has anybody ever heard of George W. Bush? The W stands for Where-the-fuck-have-you-been-all-these-years?

$400 hair cuts and an ostentatious house?

Hmmn.

"I'm amazed that anyone can see the question of whether or not reporters should use their reporting not to inform readers but to irresponsibly indulge their petty superficial prejudices about the individual candidates as a fairly debatable proposition."

Once again you defend "responsible" journalism. But journalism has never been either responsible or serious. It's hackwork and gossip. Some journalists have been better but that's been their own decision. Institutionalized seriousness will always end as institutionalized mediocrity.

What this country needs is an irresponsible left wing press (and it's beginning to get one) What it doesn't need are more political science professors who want to be down with the people but then get pissed off when the people don't come up to their level.