Thursday, December 28, 2006

Campaign 2008: Four Years Ago, The "Liberal Media" Trashed Kerry Because Of His Wealth. Here We Go Again ...

Here we go again.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" picked on John Kerry's wealth, trying to suggest that it was a metaphor for someone out of touch with the needs of mainstream America.

Now, if this MSNBC image is any indicator, John Edwards will be the candidate picked on for his wealth.

It won't matter, I guess, what the personal wealth is of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or whomever else wins the Republican presidential nomination. The "liberal media" loves a storyline when it finds one, and "wealthy Democrat" may once again be too good to pass up.


During Campaign 2004, the New York Times published at least three splashy stories detailing John Kerry's wealth, as well as describing mannerisms that would suggest he was wealthy.

The Times prattled on about Kerry's highbrow pronunciations, described a campaign assistant as a "butler," and told us that "some Democrats" were worried that Kerry liked to vacation among the wealthy in Nantucket.

Those same articles offered contrasting images of President Bush as someone who "despite his own family's legacy of wealth and political power, manages to come off as a simple-hearted Texan," failed to discuss the help Bush had gotten along the way in creating his own fortune -- such as how he used borrowed money to make a killing as part owner of baseball's Texas Rangers -- or how his family had long vacationed among the wealthy in Kennebunkport, Maine, long before he was providing the made-for-spin image of clearing brush in Crawford, Texas.

Four years ago, the "liberal media" had a story to tell. Kerry was wealthy, and out of touch with the common man. Bush was wealthy, but in touch with the common man.

To make those stories work, the "liberal media" had to paint a picture. Kerry had a butler and correctly pronounced words. Bush liked to clear brush and eat barbecue.


Fast forward to the current election cycle.

Here we go again, America. John Edwards is the new candidate to annoint as "wealthy." Let the stereotyping and storytelling begin.


Anonymous LeftCoast said...

Funny that they never mention the Bush billions...
I guess that's just our 'liberal media' again

1:24 AM  
Anonymous Jackpine Radical said...

Rich Dems are hypocrites because they claim to advocate for the poor and downtrodden. It's expected for Puggies to be rich, and they can serve the interests of their own class without hypocrisy.

At least that's as close as I can come to figgerin' it out.

1:25 AM  
Anonymous JI7 said...

they claim his wealth is hard earned from the businesses he managed of course the truth is that every fucking business he was involved in failed and lost money and pappy had to get friends to bail the fucker out. but the republicans and the whore media claim he was some successful businessman who earned that money.

while Edwards is seen as getting wealthy through being an ambulence chaser

and Kerry going after wealthy women.

1:25 AM  
Anonymous Clarkie1 said...

Honestly, I wish we had more candidates who were not in the top 1% economically. I think it makes it hard for them to relate to the rest of us, and it certainly makes it hard for me to feel like they represent me.

1:25 AM  
Anonymous JI7 said...

they did it to Al Gore also

remember how he wasn't really from TEnnessee but grew up in DC and expensive hotels and other crap.

1:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trashing Kerry because of his wealth? Shouldnt it be his wifes wealth?

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kerry was trashed for Teresa's wealth ignoring the fact that for the first decade that he was Senator he was one of the poorest Senators. There were years when Senator Kerry could not afford appartments in both DC and Boston and the cost of traveling to Boston every week to be with his daughters.

It was during this time that he stood against the entire Senate, President GHWB and former President Carter to pursue the corrupt BCCI bank. While other Senators were caught using their connections to enrich themselves, Kerry clearly didn't. It was clear that he valued his relationship with his daughters and his ability to do the right thing in his Senate job more than personal wealth.

Teresa's money is hers, not Senator Kerry's - and everyone made sure that she didn't contribute more than anyone is legally allowed to contribute. (Let's see if the media/government will monitor McCain's wife as closely)

I doubt the media will have much success with this line of attack on Edwards because - as others have said - his wealth is a result of his success and because every candidate has what to most people looks like inordinate money.

The only possible way they can use it is if the Edwards are seen to be saying that they have NOT been wealthy for most of their adult lives. Some of the comments on that have been borderline clueless - and were likely things consultants wanted, particularly Elizabeth to say.

8:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares