(cross-posted from Courage Campaign also at dailyKos)

In San Diego, the questions levied at Edwards during his press availability after what I would argue was the speech of the convention were pathetic. Hedgefunds and haircuts was all they could seem to talk about. And the SF Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci wasn’t much better. This was her idea of a probing question:

“So you are saying that YOU are the best positioned candidate to compete all over the country!?”

Edwards’s rightfully dismissive response:

If I didn’t would I be running for president?

Since then the media’s obsession with Edwards’s wealth (as though it somehow undercuts his credibility on the subject of poverty) has only escalated and now Marinucci is doing her darnedest to cement this intellectually dishonest media narrative with a story titled: Recent headlines threaten Edwards’s main campaign theme.

But hey, can’t say she isn’t nice about it. She starts out…

Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an  advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating  effects of poverty in America.

And then she shoves in the shiv…

But the former North Carolina senator’s populist  drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a  $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on  poverty to students at UC Davis.

D-day put it well the other day:

Just because you talk about people who are poor, it doesn’t mean you have to take a vow of poverty. This is the classic move by people who don’t want anyone to think about the poor; they try and disqualify anyone who has the means and the access to power to do so.

And he gives us Edwards’s response (which he never should have even had to say):

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

What’s truly amazing about Marinucci’s article is that she even has the gaul to catalog the negative media narrative phenomenon, placing the distorted narratives of Edwards and Al “the exagerrator” Gore alongside Bush’s incompetence meme, which is unique among these for actually being true. And she does it all as though she herself isn’t complicit in actually perpetuating a distorted narrative.

Like so much of the media, Marinucci isn’t concerned with truth, she’s concerned with faux balance. The only way she can talk about all the good Edwards has done and does do is by framing it as a negative, lest she be accused of having a liberal bent. Yes, hidden within her article’s creaky frame is the truth:

Edwards’ campaign spokesman Eric Schultz said the senator has in numerous  ways proved his dedication to the cause of eradicating poverty in America. 

“If you look at where John Edwards comes from and his record, its clear  that what makes him tick (is) helping those who haven’t been as blessed as he  has been,” Schultz wrote in an e-mail. 

Edwards has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina,  led successful minimum wage initiatives in six states, traveled to  poverty-stricken areas and started a college-for-everyone program for a poor  county in eastern North Carolina, he said. 

“The bottom line is John Edwards is running for president to give every  American the opportunities that he’s had,” Schultz wrote.

Hell, she even provides some context:

Edwards’ supporters note that the senator  —  who donated $350,000 to  charity in 2006 before he began his presidential campaign  —  was not alone  that year in earning considerable cash from speaking fees. 

Former President Bill Clinton, for example, was paid $100,000 speaking at  the same California public university  —  UC Davis. And another presidential  candidate, Republican Rudy Giuliani, charged Oklahoma State University $100,000  for a speech  —  and $47,000 for the use of a private jet. 

But you think any of that matters? Don’t bet on it. As Marinucci rightly observes:

In the 24/7 media environment, a few maelstroms of unconnected and unexpected  headlines and images can quickly gather momentum and morph into a political  storm that obliterates even a carefully crafted strategy and message.

The big question is why the hell Marinucci would lower herself to being yet another swirl in that maelstrom.

Give her a piece of your mind at [email protected].