Edwards vs. Dean vs. Mothra

In the course of yesterday's subversive information gathering activities, I encountered eRobin's post at American Street about reports of Joe "Everybody Look At Me" Biden and John "Am I Presidential Yet" Edwards distancing themselves from a statement made by Howard Dean.

Dean at Take Back America Conference: "You know, the idea that you have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida -- there's something the matter with that. You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever, and get home and then have a -- still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives. (Light applause.) But for ordinary working people, who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they got to get home to those kids, the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong. We ought to make voting easier to do. Mail -- Oregon has got it right."

Edwards on his blog: "What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work. Of course, I didn't think so, and I said that. I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard's outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt!"

Steve Gilliard and Kos were a little too generous with the mea culpas. This is about more - much more - than "trusting the media." It's about trusting the Democratic Party to do what it's always done, which is to stick knives in the backs of those who most aggressively challenge the Republican Party.

It's up to Edwards and other Dems to speak in unambiguous terms. Here's some cogent advice: Don't concede the validity of the question.


For all too long, Dems have excelled in ambiguity, and John Edwards is neither unfamiliar with nor immune to the phenomenon. (Listening to Edwards discuss the invasion & occupation of Iraq damages the lining of my stomach.)

The fundamental issue behind this little eruption transcends Edwards, Dean and even the corporate news media. The problem is the degraded, amorphous character of Democratic Party leadership. Overcoming that legacy will require the adoption of a shared and unflinching understanding of contemporary corporate media - what it is and what it serves.


If the Democratic Party didn't have such a LOUSY record and well-earned reputation for being duplicitous and unprincipled, perhaps more of us might not get so worked up over media portrayals - both disingenuous and otherwise - which merely reflect what we've come to expect.