Anonymous:

In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."

Even us fans of Greenwald have to give this one to the Beltway media. Policy problems require policy solutions. Pompous discussions of "root causes," "abstract concepts," and uplifting "ideas" is to the left what nationalism, religion, and resolve are to the right.

It's ludicrous because policy solutions always carry with them implicit--if not explicit--assumptions about root causes. They draw--either implicitly or explicitly--on abstract concepts. And, yes, they embody at least some semblance of grand ideas--either uplifting or depressing.

It's true, however, in the sense that liberals are motivated by ideas, and the desire to treat diseases, rather than symptoms, in the same sort of deep-down way that the right is motivated by ethno-religious identity politics.

And that's a bad thing???

Anonymous Coward Lied:

I think if they wanted to attack his [Edwards'] phoney (and it is phoney) populism they might merely mention that he just moved into a $28,000,000 home.

They have more than mentioned it. They've done a spate of stories about it. Your drive-by attack on Edwards makes you virtually indistinguishable from them.

Glenn has explained many times that he tries to do specific things, not respond to what's "hot," but to occupy "unclaimed territory," as the title of his blog proclaims. In this post, there were all sorts of media issues that he is not trying to address.

Indeed, one might even say that he is not trying to address any media issues at all in this post--only to document precisely how the media works in the examples presented. He is, in lawerly fashion, simply presenting evidence, and marking an exhibit that can be referred to again and again in future discussions--not just by himself, but by anyone inclined to link to it. Such is the power of a lawerly approach to dealing in minute particulars.

This is the fundamental point that Lisa seems to miss. But it's not the only one:

[me:]None of these are media inventions. When writing or talking about them, the media is dealing with genuine political concerns. Do they do so in a totally trivial and gossipy manner? Much more often than not, sure, absolutely. They're gossips, after all. But they are not simply invented by the media. And that's a major difference.

But aren't there also genuine political concerns that the media is tapping into with Edwards expensive haircut (class issues-he's a very rich trial lawyer who is selling himself as a populist)[I don't dispute that they're trying to feminize him as well] and with Obama's supposed lack of substance (only 2 years national political experience)?

The Edwards haircut story is vastly over-determined (it also invokes the Clinton haircut meme), which is to say manufactured. And that is precisely the point at issue.

In fact, there is no contradiction at all in a rich trial lawyer being a populist, since (a) populism is a political stance that other wealthy men and women have embraced before him and (b) populism cannot succeed without cross-class alliances. Furthermore, (c) Edwards was born dirt poor, (d) he worked his way up by himself, (e) he made his money by defending dirt poor people against wealthy wrong-doers, and (f) his policy proposals are out there for all to see, and are significantly more populist than any other top-tier candidate.

The very last thing that these rightwing gossips want is a serious discussion of the points above. They want a drive-by hit on Edwards, since a serious discussion would not only make this "contradiction" go away, it would educate people considerably about the true nature and virtues of populism, which has been given a very bad name by rancid rightwing psuedo-populism for the past 30+ years.

As for Obama's experience or lack thereof--it's more than a stretch to say that this is what they're talking about. It's a leap of desperation. Sure one can rationalize the media's behavior ad nauseum. What Glenn did here was present one more piece of evidence that makes such rationalizations increasingly implausible. And you respond with (a) vague invocations of stories unfavorable to GOP candidates and (b) rationalizations. This isn't even close to responsive to what Glenn has written.

To bring things down to earth in the simplest possible terms:

(A) The unfavorable stories that Glenn cited were invented by the media. No one was concerned about them before the media made them up. OTOH, the GOP stories you cite arose from actual news events and/or substantive political barriers that the respective candidates have to deal with in some fashion.

(B) While the invented media stories Glenn has highlighted can be rationalized in terms of "revealing issues," they are actually examples of creating phony issues, and doing so according to a GOP script. OTOH, the GOP-unfriendly stories are examples of GOP candidates running afoul of their own party's scripts.

(C) There is a direct relationship between the form of gossip, the content of annecdote and the politics of "character" which is inherently conservative (all we need is hero on a white horse) as opposed to policy, which systematically favors reality-based liberals.