If A Campaign's Polling Surges...
By Nicole Belle Monday Jan 07, 2008 3:46pm...but the media ignores the candidate, does it really happen?
Glenn Greenwald looks at the media narratives that can't say enough about McCain's "rise from the dead" but ignore John Edwards' rise completely. (h/t Atrios)
Aside from the fact that these endless prediction games completely overwhelm any substantive discussions, their guesses -- which are really wishes -- are almost always dreadfully wrong and plainly designed to advance their concealed agenda for which candidates they like and dislike. Why is any of that something that reporters ought to be doing at all? Is there any distinction between what a "reporter" does and what a "pundit" does covering this campaign? There doesn't seem to be any.
As but one example, consider this new daily tracking poll today from Rasumussen Reports. At least according to this poll, it is true that there has been one candidate who has been genuinely surging in the last week or two among Democratic voters nationally -- John Edwards [..]
Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn't even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead -- after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.
Login or Register to post comments.
I'm cautiously supporting Obama, and only because Hillary is attacking him and not presenting herself on the issues, like explaining or defending her Iraq vote.
In all honesty, because I don't like having my candidates chosen for me by the media, it's my hope that Hillary and Obama cancel one another out, and Edwards gets the nod, and offers the VP slot to Obama.
If Glenn Greenwald is typing in a forrest..
Edwards is exactly in the same place Kerry was in 2004. Perhaps history will repeat itself.
I see it as either Edwards or Obama making the nomination. I think that it is just as likely to be Edwards as Obama. Its open game. The media glorified Hillary for a year and it didnt matter. She's still losing. Their ignoging Edwards wont hurt him. He's got momentum.
If Hillary leaves the campaign, and it turns out to be Obama versus Edwards, I will have to take a hiatus from the blogosphere for a while.
Barney Google:
How is Edwards in Kerry's position? Kerry won Iowa. Sorry if you're being sarcastic and I don't get it.
Ian @ 4:
Oh I beg to differ. Obama is basically getting free advertising while Edwards might as well have dropped out of the race as far as the MSM is concerned. Imagine the support Edwards would be drawing if he had just as much spotlight time as Obama? He also carries a message of change and has some specifics to back it up...who's to say if the MSM annointed him the Great Agent of Change in the campaign that he wouldn't be up like 13 points or something on everyone else instead of Obama?
seems to me it's more about hillary's demise and the exit of dodd and biden than anything edwards is doing.
Nobama's advertising for "change" is just that, advertising. All sizzle, no steak. Merely speaking the word "change" ad nauseum doesn't qualify as a platform or a plan.
Edwards talks the talk and walks the walk. That's why the corporate propagandists ignore him.
I sooo hope Edwards gets at least second tonight. I really believe that he is the person we are going to need in the coming difficult years. He has the potential to be the next FDR.
Probably not going to happen, but wouldn't you love to see it, just to piss off the MSM!!!!
I still like Edwards
Dr Acula
I think you are right. They are terrified of an Edwards win, because he doesn't owe them anything. They would not be the masters of the game anymore.
Nicole, Glenn doesn't ignore John Edwards completely, the media narratives do. Please remove the "s" from the word "ignores" from this sentence above: Glenn Greenwald looks at the media narratives that can’t say enough about McCain’s “rise from the dead” but ignores John Edwards’ rise completely. ('sorry, I know there are bigger nits to pick, but it was driving me nuts.)
Nicole Belle: Done. Thanks for the heads up...hope you're feeling less nutty now. ;)
I suppose the republicans are voting for Obama in NH just to prove their meanness.
Obama is aware that he doesn't deserve this victory. It is the goal of the republican party to show who they really are, too insecure with democrats and this whole fiasco reflects their lying, bribing behavior.
If the candidate will take you to war like McCain, Obama, and the rest, they will win this election. We look forward to warring with others for whatever reason behind.
OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN AND Democrats don't get fooled.
Just last night I heard Jake Tapper on Charlie Rose say Edwards was essentially dead, but worse he quoted his poll number in NH at 13%, the first time I'd heard such a low number.
Who is Jake Tapper? What's his background? (one clue: Dartmouth '91) If only we could vet journalists the way they vet Democratic candidates we might have some interesting answers to how the media works.
Maybe the media pays attention to McCain's 11%-20% because 20% actually means something in the Republican race. 20% pulls McCain even with Romney and Huckabee nationally. As for Edwards, his 11%-20% surge still puts him in quite a deficit to Obama and Clinton.
Just a thought.
Obama is too much the DLC-type of corporate Democrat and I can't stand his conciliatory rhetoric. Edwards is honestly talking about fighting the entrenched corporate interests and that's why the MSM (the very definition of entrenched interests) ignores him; he's a serious threat to the status quo while Obama is just black.
I don't mean that to demean Obama, I'm just saying that his message of change has more to do with electing the first African-American than it does smashing the machine.
Edwards will smash the machine.
Edwards scares the bejeebus out of corporate America. You know, that corporate America that has shipped our jobs overseas, cut pensions, raided health care funds for retirees, etc. They own the media. Therefore, John Edwards is their enemy.
Someone once said the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Corporate America doesn't give a rat's arse about anything but profit. They certainly don't care to preserve the middle class. Without the middle class, we lose our Democracy.
Unregulated, corporate America is the enemy of Democracy. Therefore, John Edwards is my friend.
EZ @ 14:
Thanks for the light shedding.
If FOX can blatantly fix the coverage (i.e., anti Ron Paul), then it's very plausible the media can do the same, secretly, to another candidate (Edwards).
McMike @ 20:
You needn't add "secretly" to make your claim plausible. All you need are a few well placed pundits screaming, "Look at Hillary", "Look at Obama", "Look at Oprah" at regular intervals to keep the rest of the media pinned down on those story lines.
Am I the only one who gets horny from politics.
ysbaddaden @ 22:
Nope.
ysbaddaden @ 22:
No, Tweety does too. Actually, I guess it's the politicians that get him going.
.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/129003.asp
.
The MSM's lovesfest with Obama proves to us whities that they're not racists. And neither are we.
Edwards is anti-corporatist, and the media is owned by corporations. Clinton and Obama are corporatist. So the corporations can't lose if they leave Edwards out of the frame the discussion.
Plus the conservatives want to force a choice on the undecideds: a white male Republican, or choose between a black man and a female if you decide to vote with the Democrats. As reprehensible as that calculation is, they lose the misogynist/racist votes if a white male Democrat ends up the nominee.
They'd rather face candidate Clinton because they have almost twenty years of research to use against her. But they'd rather lose to Obama than to Edwards.
Lets be real...
McCain is "surging" from "no chance in hell" to "might be the odds on favorite to WIN!"
Edwards "surge" is nothing in comparison. Just 2 weeks ago, Edwards had hopes to win Iowa... now it seems the "anti hillary" candidate has been decided, and he isn't it.
The "surge" on our side is for Barack, not Edwards. To suggest that Edwards and McCain's situations are similar is a joke.
Dr Acula @ 9:
foolme1ns @ 12:
total truth!
I was a Dodd supporter, but since he dropped out, Edwards is going to get my California Vote.
If you look at the MSM behavior through the filter of "horse race" then maybe their actions make sense. They want the fabled horse race more than anything else. It makes good copy, its sexy. Policy is math class. Objectivity about all the candidates is for chumps. Edwards will get sexy if Hillary withdraws, or if his wife takes a turn for the worst(I cite this only because its true, I wish no ill on her, in fact I like her a lot).
So with that as a setting, a race that starts with the weak horse(GOP) 20 lengths behind makes for dull stenography. So like a non-comedic "front Page" MSM is going to make a race of it.
McMike @ 20:
not plausible, but certain! even puffho has a blackout on edwards.
moondancer @ 31:
if they wanted a 'horse race', then they'd be talking about the horses. they want a corporatist race, nothing more.
jogger @ 15:
I heard/saw the same thing last night. Tapper is a correspondent for ABC News, I believe. It's become very clear that the media biases out there are coming through in the reporting on Iowa. There are a few who give Edwards a fair shake (Alter) but most seem to echo Tapper and shortchange his campaign. It's infuriating, but I hope the voting public will either ignore it or - as is more likely - just isn't watching.
I was making calls for Edwards yesterday to NH and most were so tired of campaign calls from all quarters. I got the sense that there are a few in that state that wish they had never become the first primary. Must be annoying!
malcontent @ 17:
Grates on my nerves, too. Patronizing. "Dr. Feelgood" Obama with his cultivated voice saying, Come to papa, I'm gonna make everything all right, all you've gotta do is beleeeeve.
Give me a break.
Yes, let's smash the machine, let's break the back of the beast. I hated to see Dodd go, but now my support goes to Edwards.
From the time of "the haircut" it was clear, the media had decided
Edwards was not part of the mix.
Now, even though McCain was dead and buried, and the Republic party machine and it's pundits LOATHE him, as soon as he showed ANY signs of life, he was the darling of the press.
But, to be truthful, he is poised to WIN a primary, where as Edwards
only came in second.
The real test will be, if McCain loses to Mitt today, then they should make
him a footnote, as they are doing with John E.
And, hopefully, THAT happens.
ANY Democrat would beat that empty suit Romney, McCain is WAY
more problematic (again, the press loves him.)
My question for the Edwards folks (and, I would be very happy
to support him) is, where does he WIN a primary?
What's left before Tsunami Tuesday where he can eek out a win?
EZ @ 14:
took the words right out of my mouth, obamas a repig
It is vitally important for the corporations worldwide the John Edwards be shut up.
He must be shut up.
The bought and paid-for MSM doesn't want Edwards to be the nominee. Seems that way to me, anyway.
Wait till Obama starts apologizing for the Dems wanting to impeach Bush/Cheney. Remember he wants to extend a hand to the Republicans and reach across the aisle. I don't want to hear one bit of crying or bitching from the progressives who annointed this man the King! Edwards has gone to the belly of the beast for us, and what do we do: Kick him to the curb! I'm officially done with the Democratic party, the Party of Losers
One would expect different from bought and paid for , drive by, braindead, shape the debate, ignore the important , no news US media ? They lie with impunity (Fox). They protect their corporate masters ( CNNs Sanjay Gupta lying his ass off to diss Mike Moore and SICKO ) Matthews and Russert tossing marshmallows at Bushies while pretending to be real journalists when the Dems show up ? Its all really rather pathetic ya know.
Lets just get the message out that the repukes are pulling for Obama because they feel they have a better chance against an African-American than a woman. Hell even Thomas Jefferson will roll over in has grave if a black man becomes president.
Albatross @ 27:
[ding ding ding!]
Don't you all see that you are jumping into this with the same angry diviciveness that we see with the conservative masses? Obama and Edwards agree, openly and publicly, on 95% of the top 72 issues polled.
http://whereistand.com/BarackObama/JohnEdwards?gclid=COLF9s_R55ACFQINPAo...
We are in good hands if either of them win. The only candidate you should be afraid of is the only democrat running their campaign on negative attacks on her rivals.
Thank GOD the far left doesnt run the country. We would have a civil war on our hands.
I'd have more respect for Edwards if he could say a word or two about how Ohio's voters were disenfranchised in 04. He could say, it's not because I was running but these people weren't even allowed to vote! We've had two rigged national elections so far, the men who did it aren't going away, and if the national candidates can't bring themselves to discuss AMERICANS LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE as has been documented in the frickin' press, we're going to be looking at President Giuliani.
Imichael @ 42:
pssst dont let clay hear that!!!!!!!!!
Why are the Dems shooting themselves in the foot like this? I don't believe this. They are blowing the chances of winning the next election. I feel sick to my stomach. 4 more years of Republican Rule! OMG!
Ian @ 44:
might have one anyway!
Ian @ 44:
Some people enjoy debate, others find it divicive.
Bush was speaking against "irresponsible debate" while Alito was in his hearings, speaking of those engaged in debate about war as "behaving irresponsibly".
I see this debate as not only responsible, but a necessary function of our democracy.
Nicole, is Edwards leading in the polls now like McCain is? Since he isn't pulling nearly the kind of upset that McCain is, it stands to reason that the media isn't covering it the same. Perhaps you should start thinking before posting. Most of the things I see posted on this site that show a complete lack of logic come from you.
I disagree with you Tyree #48. Obama and Edwards are not interchangable in the general election. We have to win the general election, don't we? I do not think Obama can win in the south. Edwards will do far better in the south. And please don't anyone say we aren't going to win the South anyway, or they won't vote for any Dems in the south. Edwards stands a much better chance in the south than Obama.
rmjbrown @ 26:
I can't help thinking that the Right are rallying around Obama right now because in their narrow,bigoted minds they simply can't feature a "negro" winning the top spot.
Sadly they may be right.As for Edwards the question becomes:how to make an end run around a media actively working against his fortunes?
Sany @ 51:
i was speaking of a civil war!!!!!!!!! obamas a sure looser as is clinton!!!!!!!!!!! im for edwards
Ian
But what they don't agree on is the heart and soul of Edwards' message: that corporatism is ruining America. I could go for an Edwards/Obama ticket because Edwards would do everything he could to stop the corporate madness and control of government. I'm very much afraid that if Obama were president, he wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole since he's beholden to his corporate contributors. Edwards' strength would be lost in the darkness, the very reason he's running and the reason he has such strong supporters. Charisma is good for winning votes but substance is what we need to deal with the chaos resulting from the Bush administration's illegal agenda. I really believe Bush did all those destructive things to America to benefit the corporations, the illegal war, the illegal surveillance, all those contractors in Iraq and elsewhere, who are also among the torturers, the Katrina debacle. The benefits to corporations are very visible when you follow the money.
.
This man deserves to be heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--eVRYFd7kg
NOT IGNORED!
He's only unelectable because he challenges the status quo that the "OTHER" front runners support.
.
So I guess here's a few reasons I guess why every seems to hate the Clintons.
Clinton was able, most importantly of all, to rebuild confidence in US capital market places. That is the most important thing he did. He was able to cut unemployment by half and reduce the inflation rate he inherited by two-thirds. And he was able to strengthen the dollar to all time highs and to generate 4 years of fiscal surpluses, something never before achieved in the history of the nation.
Clinton did in fact use those surpluses to pay down debt as promised. In his second term, he was able to stop the practice of taking FICA taxes and using them as general revenue.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average did move from 2400 to over 11000 during his regime. He did create more wealth for the individual person in this country than had ever been created before and you simply cannot take that away from him.
Oil was 1998 11.61 per barrel. Gasoline $1.25. Milk about $1.10 etc etc.
Alright go ahead. Continue bashing the Clintons about how terrible life was during their "Regime".
Why are the Democrats in the Progessive movement falling for this charade? Can someone please help me to understand this. I am losing my mind over this!! This is what we get after 8 long miserable years of Bush!
If Obama runs for Pres. CNN will put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on 24 hours and McCain will win in a landside.
If the Dems want to show how progressive they are by having a beige man run for President the white America will show how racist and insecure they really are.
L.A. Confidential @ 56:
yeah and that GIANTsucking sound you heard was nafta sending all that progress to china!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tyree @ 59:
Yes we know Lordy give us a PERFECT WORLD where there are no risks and everything is FREE!
Mr. Anon @ 50:
Except the polls before Iowa were also completely incorrect. Huckabee destroyed the Republican side, and Obama AND Edwards EACH beat the frontrunner, Mrs. Clinton. John Edwards did so with a mere fraction of the $$$ that either Obama or Clinton spent in that state. John Edwards should be getting a TON of media coverage, for gaining SECOND PLACE above the FRONTRUNNER on, what was it, 1/5th the budget, with no lobbying $$$?]
No, John Edwards is being railroaded by the MSM. They are manipulating the narrative, distorting the news to prop up a pro-corporate candidate as the Democratic nominee. It's not that John Edwards is being neglected a little bit. He is very nearly blacked out in the media. He is in second place in the actual, recorded primary votes (you know, the ones that actually matter, as opposed to media polls), and he is undergoing a media blackout. Can you imagine if it were reversed?!?! Can you just imagine, if John Edwards won Iowa, and Obama beat Hillary for second place? Do you REALLY think Obama would be the target of a media blackout in such a scenario? Judging the MSM by their actions, I'd wager that John Edwards would STILL be the target of a media blackout even if he'd WON Iowa.
It goes for the Dems as well. go to huffingtonpost.com. look at their headlines. It's Obama v Clinton and Huckabee v Romney. The least arianna could do is include Edwards in those headlines of percentages, and C&L could try putting together some reports on Edwards's positions.
Cuz if you think Hillary or Obama can win, you're nuts. Well, maybe Obama. But Hillary's toast. I can count on my fingers and toes all the people I know who LOATHE the Bush junta but will NOT vote for hillary, as they see her as just More Of The Same. Obama might win, if he can figure out some way to win the south. HA. As if.
Edwards can win. The others can't. I prefer Kucinich, but I'm a realist...
foolme1ns @ 12:
Yes, the endless, tedious discussion of the fate of the THIRD runner who is very much in the deep pockets of the big interests, is strangely drowning out any talk of Edwards at all. Not only is he a problem for the PACs, he is the guy the Roveian attack machine dreads: a soft-drawling Southern white family man whose wife is dying of cancer. Watch them trip over themselves trying to figure out where to stick in the knife without stabbing themselves in the foot. Personally, the guy is my dream candidate.
Oh, by the way this isn't Super Tuesday for those newbees to the game.
anyone who could not see the dangers of nafta didnt pay attention even ross parott with the small frame squeeky voice screamed of naftas dangers!!!!!!!!!!!
Sany @ 57:
It's called "COMPROMISE"
See, if 1 is your base number and you compromise 1/2 of it, several times, year after year, are you closer to that base, or farther?
Good Democrats "COMPROMISE" values and principles to gain "TRUST" points with their opponent. And what is lost in return... immeasurably lost... forever.
Many Good Democrats fall for this "COMPROMISE" to win. But really, what they are doing is giving away half of what they had.
Giving away half your values leave you valueless. Half your principles = unprincipled.
This is why TORTURE is excused... Human Rights have lost VALUE.
This is why warrantless means nothing to Congress... The Bill of Rights are now unprincipled.
.
Just an aside, but here the article is highlighting how Edwards receives no positive coverage and how unfair it all is.
Notice how Ron Paul is not even mentioned in the above poll. Not even listed as a candidate. But I guess that's OK because he's a Republican. And his supporters work as hard as they do to get his message out regardless, which means they must all be crazy. Of course.
The Mainstream media is spinning all the candidates according to agendas that the public is often unaware of and playing everyone off against each other. It would be hard for CrooksandLiars to suggest otherwise given the numerous stories they have done here about unfair and even dishonest coverage of other news items. Regardless of how you feel about Dr. Paul, his ommision here after getting 10% in Iowa -- and there is much to suggest fraud in that election, most notably they hadn't posted the polling station numbers in Iowa yet for the Repubs but had the results, how interesting --should also be redflagged and highlighted if only to show that the primary process is, unfortunately, corrupt. Until there really is a fair and honest reporting of the candidates and their positions, not the sugar coated spin the media continually gives us and, unfortunately, the public's willingness to lap this stuff up, the American people are never going to be in a position to address the issues they face.
CMoon2 @ 63:
After what they did to Max I doubt very much the Rove machine would spare Mrs. Edwards.
Beware of the "Change" candidate. In the last election in Canada, Cheney's boy Harper and the Conservative party ran on the "Change" platform and won.
The previous liberal govt. had defied Bushco to keep Canada out of Iraq. Harper had wanted at the time to join the Iraq warcrime.
Change mantra is a crime waiting to happen.
Moderation @ 61:
I would just add Mr.Anon that your criticism seems misplaced.Nicole simply linked to the Greenwald article that you should probably(if you haven't already)spend some time perusing.Edwards has been surging in the polls over the last few weeks,yet he has received scant media attention.
David @ 67:
Ron Paul is also being railroaded. I wouldn't vote for the man, but Dr. Paul is doing quite well, and most assuredly deserves his fair time in the spotlight. This is what happens when you let corporations decide what journalists report, and when journalists are fired and replaced with pundits.
I'm sick of the beltway bumpkins gushing about Mccombover. The reporters act like he's the handsome high school quarterback that just asked them to the prom everytime they sit next to him on his tour bus
Frizzlebear @ 62:
A realist, who prefers Kucinich, should vote for him in the primaries.
Or, you can "COMPROMISE" and "SETTLE" for less.
CMoon2 @ 63:
Yeah the wingers hit him early and hard with all this "pretty boy" horseshit.
They despise him.Gosh..I wonder why?
"Edwards can win. The others can’t. I prefer Kucinich, but I’m a realist…"
Again, shouldn't he win a PRIMARY to prove he can win in the General?
I asked before, (and I have NO trouble supporting Edwards) where
does he make his stand in the primary?
South Carolina? Nope....
What Super-Duper Tuesday state does he win?
Wouldn't NH be a good test, for example? Independents can vote there, but, my prediction is, they will vote for Obama overwhelmingly?
And, sure, MAYBE he would do better in the South then Obama
(I'm not that convinced that ANY Demo will do well in the south).
But, we need to win OHIO not South Carolina.
Obama plays better in the Midwest IMHO.
I like Edwards a lot. He would make a great President.
But, Obama is going to be the nominee, unless Hillary somehow pulls
the great reversal?
I like both Edwards and Obama. I like Obama a bit more, mainly because I think he has more mass appeal than Edwards and has a better chance of getting things done. If you have high popularity ratings, efforts to make you a political punching bag are harder.
That said, I don't think there's any huge conspiracy here. Edwards has had 4 years to build a following bigger than Obama. Hasn't done it. Obama had his periods of being dissed as a long shot to an inevitable Hillary, but managed to win so far building a following.
I support Obama, and the odd thing is, when I read these comments from Edwards supporters, you make the whole Obama thing seem like a corporate, MSM, conspiracy that is only attracting people who aren't smart enough to see that Edwards is actually better.
Sorry, that line may work attacking Republicans, but not me. I'm a democrat, a progressive, a liberal. I think, I read, I look at all the evidence. Edwards has had ample chance to do something and it didn't resonate big enough to build critical mass.
No conspiracies and no agendas. People aren't lemmings.
colin powel says vote for obama , you got to learn all black men arent like me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David @ 67:
WELL SAID.
DITTO ON KUCINICH, GRAVEL, RICHARDSON.
I guess they don't count either?
WashStateBlue @ 75:
Hea WashStateBlue,
Notice how the Washington State Democratic Party won't acknowledge Kucinich's win on their latest STRAW POLL?
.
checkraise @ 76:
No, we have a second-place candidate who is being treated like he just dropped out and lost the primary. He surged from a distinctly disadvantaged third place to defeat the frontrunner at the time, Senator Clinton. Again, if the roles were reversed, if Edwards took first, Obama took second and Clinton took third, there is absolutely, positively, NO WAY that the MSM would declare that a LOSS for Obama, and treat him as though the race, for him, is over. Instead, if it had been Edwards/Obama/Clinton (versus Obama/Edwards/Clinton), the MSM would definitely, 100% assured, be treating this as a WIN for OBAMA (and Edwards), and a hurdle for Sen. Clinton to leap.
The fact of the matter is, the MSM is owned and controlled by corporate interests. The 4th estate actually has a vested FINANCIAL interest in denying time to ANY candidate, be they Democrat or be they Republican, who will do ANYTHING that could POTENTIALLY disrupt the flow of money in to said part of the 4th estate. That is horrifically dangerous to We the People.
Just think about how you'd be reacting if the roles were reversed, and Sen. Obama was under a media blackout while in SECOND PLACE, Sen. Edwards was in first, and Sen.
Clinton was in third. Even if not Obama supporters themselves, many would be very, very upset at such a situation. This is no different.
Max-1 @ 78:
Its very true that this election, more than any other, is highlighting how very fragile the democratic process is in America today, but I would suggest to you those flaws in the system have been with us for some time. It is just that due to our ability to interconnect today versus even 5 years ago, these errors of omission are being highlighted that much faster.
You are right to point out that other candidates who have invested their time and energy into trying to discuss major issues are being shunned and ignored. Its like we are being handed the illusion of choice when in fact the levers have been pulled already and we are given two choices in the end that are effectively the same choice. Still, the process leaves people with the "feeling" that they have been heard which serves to ensure that the status quo continues. And of course it serves to divide people along party lines which the powers that be can exploit. But it doesn't serve any of us.
It's like a magic show and would be entertaining if it weren't so depressing.
Max-1 @ 78:
They didn't (even come close) to BEATING the FRONTRUNNER at the time (Clinton). Richardson got, I believe, 8% of the primary votes. He was in 4th place. Each of the other candidates who aren't the three foremost candidates, got a mere wisp of votes, even accounting for the caucus system. So no, they do not, in fact, deserve as much of the spotlight as the three candidates who together earned 85%+ of the votes, each garnering at least 25% of the votes.
Mind you, my first choice is Kucinich. My second choice is indeed Edwards. The MSM is trying to force Edwards, our 2nd-place candidate, out of the race. Much like they are trying to force Kucinich out at every turn.
#76 Obama gets a pass cause the MSM wants him in there to run against a Republican who will definetely win the next election. Remember folks we are still in the midst of a war, and the Republcians are in control right now. All we have to do is have one unfortunate terrorist attack and the political landscpe changes all over again. National Security becomes the big topic, and sorry folks, but Obama falls way short on those credentials. Bingo we're right back where we started. Wake up Everybody!!!
Moderation @ 80:
I have been on the other side of this, I've seen Obama getting plenty of unfair coverage. I've seen Bill Clinton get a ton of bad coverage. They threw everything at him, and he won a second term, and he remained popular even during scandle. I've seen Hillary get a ton of bad coverage, and she had her chance (I think she blew-up her own chances, though). She was on top for a long time despite getting beat up from all sides.
Bad coverage comes with the territory. Part of getting this job is making it through bad coverage.
Edwards didn't do it. Period. He had his chance to win me over. I voted for him in 2004 as a vice president. The large portion of people that flock to Obama are not lemmings.
Believe it or not Edwards does have negatives. And for me and many other we "chose" someone else.
Ah, think this group comprises any of Hillary's contributors? Or is corporate America just getting scared?
The rest at the link.
checkraise @ 84:
And still, he is the Democrat with the largest surge these last few weeks, AND defeated the "sure thing" Sen. Clinton candidate. It is not up to you, or the MSM, to decide who to cover, and that is one of the (enormous) problems with the modern U.S. political climate. The forerunners of the race should get approximately equal coverage to allow WE THE PEOPLE to decide.
I don't give a crap what you think about Edwards, or Clinton, or Obama, or anyone else. I KNOW, however, that the Democrat with the largest surge in the polls, and the greater upset in the Iowa primary, is being forced out by the MSM. This is specifically WHY legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine was passed in the first place. To prevent the MEDIA from deciding who is and is not electable, and instead leaving that to We the People.
If, on the other hand, Edwards was receiving coverage comparable to his performance, the momentum he EARNED in Iowa would be paying off. He EARNED his place at the table, and neither you, nor the MSM, has any right to shut him out because of personal interests. I would be saying the exact same thing if GRAVEL did as well in Iowa, or if Guiliani did well on the Republican side. I AM saying the same thing about Dr. Paul, who is ALSO being unfairly treated by the media.
Checkraise,
Edwards did have 4 years to do something. Then we had the right wing get their boy in there to make him sound like this great hero. Everyone is following right along in their plan. In the end, this country is going to be exactly like it was when Bush took over. We have nothing but, blind sheeple, and it's not going to change. This is our time to finally do something and go against our news media's lies, but, no, they follow right along again.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they black Edwards out.
new change !meet the old change! same as the new change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anney @ 85:
Wow! How can Barack possibly pass up this great opportunity to "start reaching out to friend and foe alike".
Maybe he could fix it so we only bleed enough to still be able to get to our jobs and keep the Chamber Chiefs happy.
If Obama wins the Dem nomination CNN will sour on him and raise the spector of "SCARY BLACK MOFOS IN THE WHITEHOUSE".
The terrorized white population and some blacks will vote for the white saviour McCain.
Isn't anyone going to question chamber president Tom Donahue's familiarity with bleedin' assholes?
They hate his Socialism and for good reason!
Edwards would make the best president of the three. I fear big business will crucify Obama. I hope the American public is bright enough to see what is happening. I hope they go with reason, and not with what their pastors the tell them to do.
CNN has already shown Obamas grandmother in Kenya on their news channel today. I am sure they did to scare people. They will wait till the correct moment and then turn on him!
Sany @ 94:
this could stir up interest in bringing back the tv series of alix halleys ROOTS!!!!!!!!!!
checkraise @ 84:
You should vote your conscience. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't take the time to evaluate their chosen candidate and rely too much on the major corporate controlled networks for their information. I listened to an ABC political discussion for New Hampshire and Edwards was not mentioned. The people involved got the word from the boss upstairs not to mention Edwards. How can a large network like ABC blatantly ignore Edwards after Edwards came in second in the Iowa primary??? This is the one of the biggest conflict of interest when the corporate world (primarly defense contractors) bought the television networks. COmpare the news now as when Walter Cronkite was anchoring NBC news. Big difference!!!!
OOPs, sorry, it was CBS News Walter Cronkite was anchoring when he retired.
jackp @ 96:
I picked Obama and it has nothing to do with Edwards lack of attention. I've followed Edwards for 4 years now. You're basically calling me (and everyone else that is Democrat and progressive) a media controlled zombie that isn't smart enough to vote for your guy. It's not something I would EVER do if the tables were turned. I like Edwards, I'd support him if he wins. But you're treating other progressive that choose other candidates very poorly with this complaining about coverage. It's not coverage. He had 4 years and didn't do it.
Hey, Huckabee had no coverage and managed to do well. Edwards didn't do it. Period.
well, Nicole--you'll know in a few hours--if Edwards doesn't show well, he's gone--"polls" nothwithstanding...votes count, polls don't--
Seems like we keep having the same discussion over and over.
One is that the elections are being stolen year after year and no one does a thing about it until the last minute and then it becomes a crisis.
The other is the news media censors the democrats, persons they dislike and the news to the American citizens and nothing is do.
In fact they just keep given the control of the news media to less and less people (corporations) so the only news Americans receive is the censored news and propaganda they wish Americans to see, and again nothing is done about this.
Now are people trying to say that this could always be done and there is nothing that can stop it.
H... no,,, our government official including our democrats doesn't want the American citizens to know all they are doing in running and controlling our government so they like some of the censorship also.
Why do you think they meet behind close doors to discuss the passing of legislation which censors our freedom and rights etc, because they are going down the same road the republicans have taken.
Our elected officials are making deals with each other to pass legislation which they know d... well we disapprove of, so where is our "open government" -- Of the people -- By the people -- and -- for the people-- down the drain..
checkraise @ 98:
Nothing but take second place, above the frontrunner. So, going from third, to a solid second warrants...less media attention? He did BETTER than the candidates who have vastly larger purses, AND more media coverage BEFORE Iowa, so for doing so well with such a handicap warrants...less coverage?
Again, (projecting) YOUR OPINION is irrelevant to this matter, as is the opinion of any of the front runner supporters, including those of Edwards. You are saying that his performance in Iowa, with a distinct disadvantage in money and media coverage disadvantage, means he DIDN'T DO IT? Really? Because normally, when someone is a severe underdog and defeats the front runner, that is called SUCCEEDING and doing WELL! Like Huckabee, and McCain, Edwards did very well, without nearly the coverage in the media. Now, Huckabee and McCain ARE getting coverage, but Edwards is STILL being snubbed.
Try, just try, to reverse the roles. If Obama had 1/5th the funding as Edwards and Obama, and a lack of media coverage, AND took a totally unexpected 2nd place finish in Iowa, beating out Clinton, and was STILL under a media blackout, you would (rightfully) be calling foul. As Edwards supporters currently are. He should be receiving many interviews all over the media, asking about his strong showing. His STRONG SHOWING. Not his weak showing. Not his, "He didn't do it" showing. It's his, "I took second, beating out the front runner, Hillary" showing.
What the hell? Look at this CNN site. Only 10% of the precincts have turned in their results as of now.
CNN also projected John Edwards would come in 3rd before the NH voting was finished.
Moderation @ 101:
Fine, he's been mistreated. I've already been on the other side of being mistreated by the media. I know it's not pleasant. If Edwards was a stronger candidate, he'd overcome it. He did succeed in many ways, but not enough.
Try, just try, to understand that your candidate of choice has negatives. It's not all the media's fault. A good candidate gets beyond the harsh treatment. First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. The lesson is, harsh treatment is part of the process. Edward didn't do it.
anney @ 102:
And remember, when Iowa was being reported, for the first 10% or so of the polling results, Edwards was ahead of the pack by 8-10 points. By the time it was at around 70%, THEN the results began to settle in to the final results, with Clinton and Edwards fighting over second place.
No coverage is definitely hurting Edwards in NH. It is likely also hurting Ron Paul. The MSM simply has too much power over the framing, and the exposure. It should absolutely not be up to corporations to decide what (or whom) is newsworthy, and what (or whom) is not.
checkraise @ 103:
Duh. Who doesn't have negatives? Nevertheless, the media treated the FIRST and THIRD place candidates as though they were the only two in the race.
"My guy" hasn't got a chance (Kucinich), my second is being snubbed utterly (Edwards) and my third is doing very well (Obama).
Moderation
I can't believe they published his obituary before he died (closest analogy I could come up with).
I think he intends to continue through Supertuesday though, and a lot can change between now and then.
Well, back to check the NH counts again...
anney @ 106:
I can. Paul doesn't even have a slice of the pie on the CNN charts, even though he is neck-and-neck with Guiliani (who is, of course, on the chart with his 9% of the votes).
I am so very weary of the MSM. They simply have too much power to influence elections. They are disenfranchising so much of the vote. :(
I will be very happy if Edwards of Obama wins, though, so at least the candidates I support have a definite chance. I will also vote for Hillary above any of the Republican candidates, including Dr. Paul. This election simply must not be won by ANY of the current crop of Republican candidates. Nary a one.
The MSM is telling us who to vote for. We are doomed. I thought Progessives were so much better than this.
Edwards has consistently gotten the rawest deal of any major candidate. If you want to count all the Dem candidates, I'd say Kucinich has been the most overlooked, with Dodd right up there, too.
Moderation @ 107:
You could not have expressed my thoughts much better. News-flash: McCain wins New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton running neck-and-neck'. The MSM has let the American people down, since the days of Woodward and Bernstein. Not all of them, of course. But, the major outlets really owe we citizens an apology. But, I am not going to hold my breathe waiting.
Their election influence is far too great. When we eventually tackle election reform, this is a very fruitful place to begin.
THE 'AXIS OF EVIL' , THE ACTUAL ONE, ARE THE CORPORATIONS AND THE MEDIA THAT THEY OWN, THE 'REPORTERS' AND 'PUNDIT PIMPS' THAT THEY BUY AND SELL TO ENACT THEIR EVIL AGENDA. THIS AXIS OF EVIL, THE CORPORATE MEDIA IN TOTAL, SHOULD BE CHARGED, TRIED , AND CONVICTED FOR PURPOSEFUL, CRIMINAL, FRAUD COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. CORPORATE CUM SLUTS LIKE 'MISS' MATTHEWS, MISS RUSSERT, MISS WILLIAMS, ETC SHOULD BE FROG MARCHED OUT OF THE PROTECTION OF THIER CORPORATE STUDIOS AND RIGHT INTO JAIL AND TURNED INTO 'BITCHES' FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE INMATES.
Login or Register to post comments.