Is Adam Nagourney a moron?
In tomorrow’s Times political memo, he asks What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?. I think the better question is: “How does someone this fucking stupid get a national podium like a New York Times political column?” I don’t have the resources of the Times and I’ve been posting polling data for a year that shows Iowa to be, essentially a three way tie. In fact, I bet some of the few of you who read this were probably grew bored with my insistence that Edwards really is in this race, especially when the national media has been emphatic to the contrary. Well, after a year of painting Iowa as the first step on Hillary’s path to inevitability, with occasional suspense building side notes about whether Obama might trip her up, it appears that the national media is being forced to reckon with the reality on the ground–AT LAST.
Sadly, I believe that even if Edwards gets the nomination, the national media is going to make it as hard for him to win the presidency as they can. They’re already looking to do the same hatchet job on him that they did on Gore in 2000. With Gore, the plan appeared to be to paint him as a boring liar for months and months leading up to the election. With Edwards, the script already appears to be to paint him as “the angry guy”. This set up then allows the national media pundits to talk about how America doesn’t want an angry leader and that he can’t win. It also allows some of them to paint him as a hypocrite in comparison to the equally manufactured “too nice to win” picture they made up about him in 2004. Some of them are already trying to use the hypocrite angle by saying that you can’t be rich and be an advocate for the poor. I wonder whether that narrative is just brazen dishonesty or if it arises from a complete ignorance of U.S. history
