Do you think that Edwards was ignored because the national journalists

[WCGreen]

all make the kind of money that would make them think the "populist" would raise their taxes...

It become personal for the talking and typing heads...

Do you, as I, think the media has drifted right because they, meaning the folks who have become the spokespeople for the country because they are on tv or write for one of the major newspapers or magazines, earn enough money to care about stuff such as the Alternative Minimum Tax...

I have done about thirty tax returns so far this year that were supposedly going to get taxed because of the AMT...

Not one so far has come close...

The people who earn money from investments and have way out of wack deductions are the ones who will get smacked by that tax, not some schlub who listens to Rush Limbaugh on his lunch hour...

But the media called on hue and cried so loudly that suddenly everyone was frightened by the AMT...

Anyway, the point is the media has become part of the problem as they view things from a conservative nature, meaning, of course, they wish to conserve their lofty place in our society. They seem to have taken the stance of the wealth in the country and so refuse to talk about any issues of importance to all the rest of us out here in the hinterlands with no health insurance, declining wealth, dwindling jobs, outrageous price increases in the very staples of life...

They criticized Edwards for his large house while the so-called voices of the people are driven around in limos and mingle with the very best of society...

How could we have let them do that to us...

But more important, how did we the people let this happen...

It's the money that Tweety and Dobbs and Campbell Brown...

BTW, didn't she look fabulous last night...

I mean she got that purposeful hair flick down to a tee...

I'm impressed...

I bet they teach that now, you know, an anchors use of hair to make a point while on camera 101...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Yes I do. The rich broke out in hives, and the corporate rich had to wear

adult diapers around him.

[TexasObserver]

2. MSM = Globalist, Corporatists Errand Boys who FEAR John Edwards' message and populism.

And that's exactly why I want a Democratic president and a filibuster proof senate, so John Edwards can be appointed to the Supreme Court and rip their pompous asses for the next 30 years.

[brentspeak]

3. That's one reason

Another is that the corporate honchos who head the major networks and newspapers issue their media shills' marching orders: Do and say whatever it takes to take down Edwards.

Yet another reason is that Edwards threatened the K-Street way-of-life. The Beltway mainstream media whores are the lobbyists' neighbors and friends: they often live in the same neighborhoods, have kids who attend the same upscale schools, etc. Edwards, to them, was attacking their "kind".

[BeyondGeography]

4. Edwards was "ignored" because he lost Iowa

where they knew him very well and where the result can not be blamed on the media. Unless you think Iowans are fools, that is.

He was the third best candidate in the field this year, a fact which also had nothing to do with the media.

[brentspeak]

6. Nice smear attempt on your part

"Unless you think Iowans are fools, that is."

Sounds like the kind of logical fallacy rhetoric one hears on FOX News or Flush Limblow.

[BeyondGeography]

7. So he finished a distant second in Iowa because...

[WCGreen]

8. By that definition then wasn't he the second best candidate...

Beside that, I don't really cotton to the idea of Iowa setting the agenda for the rest of the country...

And the much praised caucus sytem is nothing more than a small circle of friends meeting in smoe free rooms to foist their choice on the excluded majority of party members...

Supredelgate, begone...

Causus selection for delegate, begone...

[BeyondGeography]

14. He almost came in third and then he didn't come clse to second again

Look, Edwards ran the best campaign he could, IMO, he was just in an impossible situation competitively speaking this time around. Thematically speaking, I'm glad he ran as strong a campaign as he did, because he did keep the two frontrunners honest about economic fairness when they may have drifted off into more neutral (and less relevant) territory. He was focused on the economy before it became the #1 issue in the campaign, and, as such, he did everyone a favor.

As a candidate, he had severe weaknesses that his supporters routinely overlook. I think he probably did get overlooked by the media to some degree, but that's the way I felt in 2004 when I supported Wes Clark and that's the way everyone feels about their candidate when he loses.

[WCGreen]

26. I felt the same way about Wes Clark as well...

The rest of that crowd was woefully inadequate...

Edwards was the right man coming at the wrong time...

It's hars to go against a narative set in stone...

[brentspeak]

11. a) the Iowa young voters latched onto the Obama bandwagon --- without knowing

a damn thing about him or his policies; b) Edwards also had to compete with Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

18. In other words, Edwards didn't manage to bring anyone new into the process

who would vote for him.

Media's fault?

[brentspeak]

23. When the media is reporting the race as an Obama/Hillary race, then, partially, yes.

For the record: do you believe that the mainstream media did NOT write Edwards out of the picture and that they gave him as much coverage as the other two candidates?

[BeyondGeography]

34. I believe Edwards had enormous advantages that his supporters routinely overlook

He led all the early polls in Iowa until the fall because of the goodwill he had built up there since 2003, and he had national name recognition as a VP candidate in 2004.

And then, something happened: He started to lose the money primary in a big way. This had nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the reluctance that many people felt about him as a candidate.

I'll take myself as an example. I wanted an alternative to Hillary who had opposed the war from the start, for two basic reasons: IWR disgusted me and, almost as important, one of the main lessons of the 2004 campaign was that we would be killed if we put a "for it before you were against it" candidate out there. Antiwar money, and there was/is lots of it, poured into Obama's campaign. I also saw Obama as the more credible candidate for change because he had the legislative record to support it. Edwards talked a good game, but he had a weak Senate record and his personal choices (most notably plowing half of his fortune into a hedge fund) were at odds with his strong anti-greed narrative. His personal and political story just didn't hang together for a lot of us, and these were judgments that were made independent of the media.

[dflprincess]

12. And Clinton finished third

yet, after the Iowa caucus all we heard about was Obama and Clinton. The MSM wanted the contest to be between the two corporate Democrats and the voters walked right into the trap.

[JDPriestly]

15. Edwards spent far less money than Obama, who has Hollywood

and Oprah support and Hillary who has corporate support. Edwards is by far the best of the candidates who began this race. His second place in Iowa was amazing considering the financial advantages that Obama and Hillary enjoyed there.

[onehandle]

10. Don't bother discussing Edwards with Obama supporters.

They Hate Edwards even more than Hillary because they know he was the real thing.

[brentspeak]

13. I know. And unfortunately, our nation loses out, not having Edwards in the White House.

I grudgingly pushed the button for Obama during the NJ primary (because Edwards was no longer in the race), but had to wrestle myself from pushing "Edwards" as a protest vote; I figured it was important to at least not get Hillary the win. Recently, though, Obama's DLC-lite statements have me throwing my hands up in the air in total frustration, and feeling a bit of despair.

[Kokonoe]

21. I hope this makes you feel better

"Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left"Karl Rove.

[brentspeak]

33. If Obama is elected, I guess we'll just have to "hope"

that he doesn't govern like he's Mr.DLC.

[Kokonoe]

35. yes, a good sign is he's not corporate-financed. n/t

[anigbrowl]

27. No smear

Edwards had spent loads of time In Iowa since 2004. He campaigned like crazy there, he got plenty of media exposure. He should have won with all that prep time, but he didn't. Why not? It's not for lack of Iowans getting a good look at him.

[Kokonoe]

16. It's over after Iowa?

[Fancifulactor]

20. The "haircut" stories originated once polls showed him leading in Iowa

And the "Edwards is angry" meme. it was downhill from there.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Let's remember how the haircut story happened

The media only found out about it becase his campaign listed it on a public FEC filing.

The media wasn't out to get him with that story, he handed it to them.

[sfam]

25. The real question is why didn't he handle the story better?

Truly, if a haircut story can finish him off, he really needs to work on his response team. This should have been a one-day wonder. Instead, it turned into something lots greater. Yeah, the story was crappy, but every candidate gets crap like that - Edwards did NOT handle it well. That's his fault, nobody else's.

[WCGreen]

31. That's very true...

They wanted him out so the historic confrontation between a Woman and an African-American could unfold...

Or...

They feared his populism...

I think both had something to do with the way Edwards was treated by the Media...

When you consider that every gop running for president was given almost as much if not more air time than Edwards, you can see the big picture then...

[jackson_dem]

36. Why was he ignored all of 2007?

That was before Iowa voted. His poll numbers and solid fund raising early in 2007 justified more than 1/6 of the coverage of Obama. Hillary got slightly more than Obama but her front runner status justified it. Obamites don't like to acknowledge it, but the msm designated Obama as the sole challenger to Hillary the moment he entered the race. You could even argue the msm chose him prior to that given the msm's creation of Obamamania when his book, full of Democratic boilerplate and nothing earth shattering, came out.

On the rethug side the msm had room for at least four candidates in the story at a given time and right before the primaries it had a five candidate narrative (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and Huckabee). Yet on the Democratic side from the very beginning they restricted it to two candidates. If there was room for five candidates in the rethug narrative why only room for two on the Democratic side?

Lastly, it is no coincidence the two front runners are media darlings.

[NashVegas]

5. Media Owners Didn't Like His Talk of Anti-Mergerism

While those on the creative end would have to risk their jobs to air the matter.

[WCGreen]

9. Watch Eli Stone on ABC..

The creative class is taking it to the streets...

THe talking heads weren't purdy enough to get a shot at the entertainment business so they migrated to the next best thing, televised newsreading...

[Fancifulactor]

17. That's definitely part of it. Most pundits are millionaires, or at least wealthy

They are not like you or me. They do not share the concerns of the average American. Of course, there are exceptions, but remember that even if some journalists are well-intentioned, their executives are multi-millionaires, and every piece in a newspaper or comment on TV is first scrutinized by executives, their assistant editors, etc. etc.

[jillan]

19. Personally I feel that Edwards was ignored because the msm went for the story.

The first woman vs the first African American.

That is exciting, and they got their ratings. They had things to talk about.
racism, sexism, the ex-President...blah, blah, blah.

Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich may have been better for the country,
but they were not exciting enough.

[ContinentalOp]

39. Bingo!

As much as I like Edwards, he's kind of bland and white bread compared to exciting possibility of "first black president" or "first woman president." At least from a strictly media-centric, narrative point of view.

[sfam]

22. Edwards' problem was his mismatch in his Senate voting vice what he stood for as a candidate...

That's my perspective anyways. He voted for the war, voted for trade agreements, and so forth, but ended up supporting a very different agenda later. His problem is not that unlike Hillary's - he probably voted for stuff he really didn't believe. That he fessed up to this and changed his mind later is admirable, truly it is, but this is hard to recover from.

That, plus, he couldn't really handle the simplest of punches. The hair thing should have been a one-day story, similar to Hillary's singing fiasco. But his response (anger) ended up giving it a life of its own. He should have laughed at himself and made lots of good hair jokes or some such, and it would have died. Instead, it became a commentary on the supposed mismatch of his life vice what he was trying to stand for.

[brentspeak]

28. Edwards barely said anything about the "hair" issue

The moment it got out, it was beaten like a dead horse by every pundit in the planet. Edwards had nothing to do with perpetuating the "story".

Edwards' main problem was Barack Obama, who a) undermined Edwards' youthful, energetic presence simply by being even younger than Edwards; and who b) stole Edwards' "change" platform.

[sfam]

32. Edwards handled it horribly...he said almost nothing, it was beneath him...worse...

he was angry about it when he did discuss it. Talk about HORRID damage control. To say that he had no chance of changing the narrative is a bit naive, I think. EVERYONE wanted to hear from him on this just because everyone was talking about it. He flubbed it horribly.

[pretzel4gore]

29. a little fyi....

when peter jennings died, he left a $50 million estate. I've seen people say jennings just invested wise over a 20 year career, but $50 million? The guy was a newsreader!
When sam donaldson and krappie roberts inexplicably left the battlefield even as the bush phenomena was being ratcheted up (letsee if big muddy is stoopid enogh to swallow this one, dick! harharhar) a few years back, they had george will as a panelist on their last show....Will told donaldson, a reputed liberal, that as he was now retiring from the news biz, was it ok to reveal that donaldson voted for GOLDWATER in 1964? (the year after the nazipoohs murdered JFK btw)... to donaldson's utter shock'n'aw shucks! you shoulda seen it!
priceless!

[robbedvoter]

30. Message - unacceptable to MSM + not enough money to spend on them

The 2 candidates to be covered (one as the good guy, the other as the evil bitch) both have raised enough money to pay for Campbell Brown's hairdos for life. That warranted the time. Of course, one candidate got mud for it, but still coverage.

[ContinentalOp]

37. I like Edwards a lot but people don't seem to respond very well to him.

A lot of people I know who don't pay very close attention to politics and certainly don't watch a lot of mainstream media don't really seem to have much of an opinion of him. I think running and losing as VP hurt him possibly. Playing second fiddle to someone as dull as Kerry probably didn't help his image at all.

[jackson_dem]

38. People knew he existed but not much else since the msm designated Obama the sole challenger to Hill

[ContinentalOp]

40. I agree that the media followed what was a better narrative for their ratings.

But I still think there's just something fundamental about Edwards' personality that put him in third place behind Hillary and Obama. Like I said, even among people who don't pay attention to the mainstream media, he's kind of a nonentity for some weird reason. Maybe that's just because the mainstream media drives the word on the street and talk online so that even if you don't pay attention to it you are forced to absorb it secondhand.