When did the Edwards campaign go tone deaf?

There's a story this morning in John Edwards' hometown paper, the Raleigh News & Observer, about his campaign's apparent attempt to squelch a University of North Carolina student journalist's video report on a student volunteer at Edwards' headquarters.

But the journalist, Carla Babb, instead focused on an apparent disconnect between Edwards' rhetoric of his "two Americas" drive to improve the lives of the poor and his decision to house the headquarters in an upscale shopping center.  So the story shifted, but is far from a hit piece.  It comes across as balanced and focuses on a persistent image problem for the former trial lawyer.

The campaign apparently did not react well, demanding the piece be withdrawn and threatening to limit UNC journalism students' access to the campaign, the newspaper reported.

The result of all this?  First of all, you wouldn't have been reading about Babb's video here, or seeing the embedded video below, had it not been for the campaign's reaction to a pretty basic bit of reporting. And you wouldn't have had us reminding you about Edwards' expensive taste in haircuts, or his 28,000-square-foot bungalow.

There's nothing wrong in this go-get-'em culture of ours with getting rich -- some of our biggest heroes are rich.  What does catch people up, though, are sniffs of hypocrisy and fair play.

Voters will decide whether Edwards' decisions are out of step with his policies, though as one of the folks in Babb's piece points out, poor people tend not to get far in presidential campaigns.  And it's not like rich folks haven't done the poor a good turn before.

But from a strategic standpoint, one has to wonder where the image folks, and crisis management people, are in the Edwards campaign.  Instead of focusing on poverty, the focus is now on wealth.  Talk about not getting your message across.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[Oscar]

This is a VERY OLD story. I read about it, and saw the video months ago.

The newspapers in North Carolina already covered this, as well as the national press.

It is unclear as to why the this story is being put forth as new. There is nothing NEW in this article.

Why is the Los Angeles Times running it now, as though it was just discovered today, when the story is months old, with no new developments?

(The blog isn't running it now. Google is reporting it now. The item is an old one. Look at the date.)

[Gus]

When did the LA Times become obsessed with minutia having nothing to do with the campaign or the issues? Would it kill you to write one story on this site about policy? ....any policy at all.

[Patty Morlan]

Before I even got to the bottom of this story I knew that it had to be written by Mr. Martelle. Mr. Martelle you've been knocking Edwards this entire campaign but this attempt to bring up a story that was reported months ago and try to slime Edwards with it is even a low blow for you.

You know when I first started reading this blog there were a lot of comments but as the campaign goes on there are less and less people bothering to comment. I wonder why?

I was so pleased the other day when Mr. Frederic actually ran a fairly nice piece about Edwards. I thought maybe I'd been wrong about the hostility towards Edwards at this blog. But after today I see that the positive Edwards piece was just an anomaly.

(FYI, you're reading a very old item.)

[Deborah S]

Why is the LATimes so obviously anti Edwards?
Oscar, you are spot on.. this non story was from months ago, why is the Times trotting it out as current and newsworthy?Why not an article on the current stats showing that Edwards is the most electable Democat against any of the GOP candidates, by a wide margin, he was also just endorsed by the Governor of Iowas wife , any positive press is not reported in the Times, yet negative non stories from months ago are... why would that be?

Could it be that Edwards message is starting to resonate with everyday people and the corporate powers that be including the corporate owned MSM, is trying to once again marginalize or smear John Edwards because they know he is the biggest threat to corporate America?

I know so, and the American people are beginning to wake up and see the truth.

Edwards 2008 " The Peoples President"
A vote for John is a vote for yourself!
Say NO to corporate Democrats!

(The blog is not trotting out an old story. Where did you find out about it? Google, I suspect, which dug it out of our archives. Go to the homepage of this blog. You'll find only new items. latimes.com/topoftheticket )

[Jeremiah]

Please answer Oscar's question. This is a very OLD and TRIVIAL story. Why are you writing about it now, in the first month before primaries?

Edwards has a great plan called College For Everyone, which would provide free college education to every American high school graduate who is willing to work. Wouldn't an analysis of that plan make for more interesting reading than this re-hashed hit piece?

(Read the date on this item.)

[Kevin]

Yawn, yawn, blah, blah. This is so old. Apparently this paper had space to fill and chose to regurgitate old cud. How about speaking on the issues that matter instead of this petty crap. Wake up and listen to what he says on the issues. I'd rather have Edwards as our President than the either of the other two the media has ordained.

(Hey, Kevin. Check the date on the item before you complain. And this isn't a paper.)

[Robert Hanke]

It is this blog entry which is the hit job. This story is sooo yesterday. It's like the conservative papers are too lazy or scared to attack Edwards' policy so they are going to keep hammering away on the haircut and the 20,000 square ft. home. I guess sleaze is the only way to bring a good man down.

[Oscar]

This almost rivals the kindergarden story.

[CAReal]

There's only one reason why the LA Times would once again dredge up this silly non-story: John Edwards, the ultimate threat to the current status quo, is now within striking range of the White House! GO JOHN GO!

(FYI, how did you come upon this old article? Google, right? This old item has resided in our archives since its initial publication. No dredging involved over here.)

[Mr. Unite Us]

Fair and balanced reporting by Ms. Babb.

I am shocked and amazed that the Edwards campaign would react so strongly.

"The campaign apparently did not react well, demanding the piece be withdrawn and threatening to limit UNC journalism students' access to the campaign, the newspaper reported."

While college students are overwhelmingly in support of Obama,
I can see how a story about the Edwards reaction would turn a lot of
college students off, and not just college students. .

I agree John Edwards on many issues however I do have
serious concerns.

I was extremely dissappointed with Edward's debate perfomance against
Dick Cheney. I was embarrased for the man. This great trial lawyer was expected to run circles around Cheney. Instead he fell flat on his face

Edwards failed to carry his own state and did little boost the Kerry campaign.

Contrast that to Obama who leads his 2-1 over his closest rival in Illinois.
and in 2006 he helped other Democrats around the country get elected.

I don't think Clinton or Edwards has that capability .

Edwards foreign experience draws a blank. I don't know if he's been overseas or what he has to say about any foreign country, other than the war in Iraq.

Edwards says he will take on the corporations, but what did he do as Senator.

[Kevin W]

Scott,
Here's some other "breaking" news stories you should be reporting on in your next blog entries:

1) The Titanic sank. Over 1000 perish.

2) The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack.

3) Truman defeats Dewey

4) President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

5) Nixon Resigns

Shameful reporting on this one. But it would show too much thoughtfulness about the standards of professional journalism for you to ever apologize for such an egregious error. We won't be holding our breath for that to happen.

[PMORLAN]

Thanks for letting us know that this piece is old. I wonder why it popped up on Google with all the new stories? I don't exactly know how Google works but I sure hope this was just a mistake and not something done intentionally to rehash old news. Sorry for jumping on you guys (you deserved it in October but not now! Ha! Ha!).