Mudcat Goes Metrosexual

By: The Grey Havens
Published On: 6/22/2007 5:24:34 PM

This made me laugh.

Dave Mudcat Saunders in Men's Vogue. 

Given the apparent target demographic of Men's Vogue and Mudcat's recent assault on the "metropolitain set", it's worth nothing what some people have recently said about Men's Vogue.

Seriously, who s going to read Men's Vogue? The mos and metrosexuals (who are really just mos in denial). That s 10% of the population. Now let s consider the fact that Man Vogue is billing itself as more yupscale than the general interest mag, GQ. So now we re talking about gays that make over $300,000 a year? That s a pretty small demographic. Last time we checked, hairdressing and go-go boying didn t pay that well, and Ricky Martin and Anderson Cooper do not a readership make. Just sayin'. ?NH

More Below the Fold
also:

The only reason we need another men's magazine is because it has Vogue attached. That is the status [publication] of the most powerful fashion brands worldwide," Husni said.

Men's Vogue, Fielden explained, "speaks to the sensibility of a guy no longer driven by his libido and earlier ambitions, but [who is] much more about having a family, wanting to master things and wanting to really know in depth about things.'

Hunting and fishing, however, probably aren't among them.

Beyond the sweet, delicious irony, the article is acutally pretty good.  Mudcat does a great rep job for Edwards.  I don't understand Mucat's antipathy towards bloggers, but I support about everything he says.  Money quote:


MEN'S VOGUE: Some people give Edwards grief because he's rich and he wants to talk about the poor.

SAUNDERS: Oh, I've gotten that for sure. It's like Harry Truman said, "The president of the United States is the lobbyist for the regular people." It drives me berserk when someone says that Johnny's a wuss or something. Let me tell you something, John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch.



One more point, today's NYT Front Page attack on John Edwards was beyond the pale.  Basically, the media says, if you're not poor, you can't work to help the poor.  That's just unAmerican, and it's disgusting.  If that line of attack had sidelined FDR, we'd never have recovered from the Depression or won WWII.  Stupid, assanine, moronic and wrong.

Comments



Surprising Edwards Support (The Grey Havens - 6/22/2007 5:45:49 PM)
From USA Today, June 13

Which candidate does disproportionately well among the wealthiest Democrats?

Answer: Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, the populist who's focusing on poverty and promising, among other things, to roll back tax cuts for the affluent.

[...]

Edwards draws support from groups that Democrats often struggle to reach: men, whites, moderates and the well-to-do. One-third of his supporters make more than $75,000 a year, the highest percentage of any Democrat. Despite efforts to cultivate labor-union members and increasingly pointed opposition to the Iraq war, Edwards shows limited appeal to lower-income workers and liberals. He does no better among anti-war voters than the other Democrats.



I have to admit that this astonishes me (The Grey Havens - 6/22/2007 5:47:50 PM)
Edwards' is the strongest anti-war canidate in the top tier, and his methodical, detailed policies should thrill the Dem base.  What is going on?


Press is lazy (WillieStark - 6/23/2007 10:06:51 PM)
That is what is going on. They would rather write about bullshit stories like haircuts and houses.

Also, that cover story in the NYT was a total bullshit story. They did not even talk to ANY of the recipients of help from Edwards poverty organizations. The reporter had made up his mind about trying to fuck Edwards before the story was written. They basically were claiming to read Edwards mind about what he was trying to do with the organizations.

As Mudcat has said before. "Thinking Edwards cannot speak on poverty issues because he is not poor himself is like saying one has to be sick to talk about healthcare or a left behind student to talk about education. TOTAL BULLSHIT."



A Different Take on the Back Page of the NYT (AnonymousIsAWoman - 6/24/2007 2:01:00 PM)
Interestingly, Paul Krugman, the NYT columnist and also an award-winning economist, a few weeks ago criticized exactly the line of thinking that has been claiming that Edwards can't be a real supporter of the poor because he is wealthy.

I'm not going to try to link to the Krugman piece because you have to pay to read it.  But he really took critics to task for harping on Edwards' wealth as if that somehow disqualified the man from being concerned about poverty.

Krugman also pointed out that Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy all came from wealth and did more for the middle and working class than other leaders in their day.  Indeed, Krugman reminded his readers that in the 1930s FDR was much criticized by conservatives as being a class traitor.

Edwards, on the other hand, is that rare person who came from poverty, received an education and became a self-made millionaire who didn't forget his roots.  Lots of others who climb out of poverty, as Edwards did, like to give themselves all the credit and forget all those who helped along the way.  They cast their lot with the wealthy and run from their own roots, as did Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as one example.



I think it's utterly irrelevant whether or not (Lowell - 6/24/2007 2:11:01 PM)
you're personally poor or wealthy, black or white, Christian or Jewish, etc.  What matters, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, is the "content of your character."  And, I would point out, your "character" can change over time. Take FDR as a prime example; many historians believe that he never would have been the president he was, or president at all, if he hadn't been struck by polio.  Before that, he was kind of a frivolous, unfocused playboy.  As President, he became one of the greatest leaders, and greatest Progressives, in history.  I'm not saying that Edwards is or is not anything like FDR, I'm just pointing out that character is what matters - and values, and courage - not how much money you've got.


good post (WillieStark - 6/24/2007 5:41:00 PM)
I agree, it is hard to compare anyone to FDR. The way I see it, Edwards holds the best chance of beating any of the Republican field at this time. Hillary won't win shit. Obama is interesting but lets face it. He ain't gonna go anywhere at this time. He is just not ready.

We want a combination of electability and progressivism. The most progressive of our candidates reside in the loony bin category. Edwards has 1. The most progressive health care plan. 2. Has the most reasonably progressive stance on the war in Iraq. I mean who else has led on this issue more in the last year or so. Why the hell weren't Obama and Hillary whipping their fellow Senators and lawmakers into line to stand up to Bush on the defunding. 3. No candidate speaks to the most pressing progressive issue of our time like John Edwards, meaning of course, the vast inequalities of wealth in our society and the poverty that goes ignored.

I mean it is pretty obvious that I like Edwards a lot. But it is not like this is some sort of blind loyalty. I honestly believe that he is the best guy for the job. Not just the guy who can win (which he is).

Word to the rest of you. And I may post this same spiel on a couple of different diaries here so be patient with that.

IF YOU ENJOY OUR MAJORITY, DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO MAKE SURE JOHN EDWARDS IS THE NOMINEE. HILLARY CLINTON WILL FUCK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYS CHANCES AT RETAINING CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

Yes I was yelling about this. I know we are months away from resolution of this contest for our nominee. But the accelerated season and amazingly intense scrutiny on the race demand that I yell a little. I mean, what the hell do we think will happen if the GOP takes another presidency. This is not just about the Democratic party or partisanship at all. It is about the United States not looking anything like what its ideals would like it to be. That is what is at stake.