There has clearly been a concerted effort on the part of the major media to take John Edwards out of the Presidential race. This has been going on for more than a year. They have successfully moved Edwards out of the way by sinking his campaign; allowing them to get the matchup that they want no matter what. And with so little time between Iowa and the New Hampshire Primary, Edwards has little chance of making up any ground.
All along, the networks wanted to see a matchup between Obama and Clinton because it would be the biggest ratings draw. Therefore, the networks proceeded to set the stage & set the agenda for what THEY wanted....(not what the people wanted), by giving disproportionate wall-to-wall coverage to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. In doing so, they set the agenda for voters...and established who the "favorites" were going to be...in order to get the matchup that they wanted.
Without the media hype, the Obama & Clinton campaigns would have gone nowhere... because neither candidate is the best that the Democrats had to offer, and neither candidate is the most electable.
What we are witnessing with John Edwards is one of the biggest travesties in American electoral history. And no one will do anything about it.... because there is no election authority in this Country that can regulate, enforce laws, recommend changes, or correct these kinds of injustices.
This is why fundamental electoral reform is so desperately needed...including the regulation of media coverage. Other Countries already regulate media coverage and public polling during campaigns.
Here are the latest examples of the media's Blackout effort against John Edwards... But this nonsense has been going on everyday for over a year.
Example with additional video
_____________________
Related Links
The Blackout of John Edwards and the Aftermath of Iowa
Other Candidates Banned from Participating in New Hampshire Debate
Iowa - A Test For American Democracy
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
welcome to the hell of a Ron Paul supporter.
This only drives home the importance of building a critical mass of dissent among concerned citizens over the long term -- including the years in between elections. The emergence of the political blogosphere is among the most important aspects of this. I agree with you that as long as Big Media corporations control the airwaves, they will control the popular consciousness because most people still get their news and perspectives from radio, tv, newspapers, etc.
The Hillary and Obama campaigns would have gone nowhere but for media hype? Hillary has been a high profile and heavily supported candidate for some time. Barack is connecting with people and doing so successfully. I guess the gazillion small donors who have financially supported his campaign to the tune of $100 million (full disclosure, I'm one) are just zombie puppets of the media?
Edwards has no reason to whine about MSM mistreatment when the fact is that the guy, while having his supporters, is not going to win America with a campaign strategy of corporate attack and two Americas. I'm not saying that Edwards does not have some points, but nonetheless, its a typical democrat big government solves all approach and its not catching fire. Obama and Hillary are not particularly different in that regard, but they are stronger candidates for the general than Edwards. He's been in Iowa 2-3 years campaigning and only barely managed to edge out Hillary. Lets not forget that Edwards has already been part of a losing ticket and like Hillary, he's a bit of back to the future as well, which I also don't think is going to help him.
Lastly, he doesn't have the cash to have the staying power in this race, which is also a measure of his electability. Obama has built a campaign on a whole lot of small donors and thats for a reason.
Don't blame the media for the fundamental weakness and lack of breadth in the reach of Edward's message.
aaron & alaine,
The media started this hype over a year ago. The disproportionate media coverage, over time, did have an impact. The media set the agenda, and decided who the "favorites" were going to be, before the people could decide for themselves. Yes... the people follow what the media says.
Yes, Obama and Clinton have been "high profile" for some time. And they probably would have done well...if the media attention was equally distributed.
My point is... that Edwards, and perhaps some of the other candidates, would have done better with similiar media hype. The coverage has been lopsided. If you are denying that...then you are not being honest.
The Obama/Clinton hype was started over a year ago by the networks, because of the ratings draw that a white woman vs. a black man would bring. It was a business strategy.
It's a miracle that Edwards was able to get 30% and second place in a media blackout. Imagine how much better he would have done if he would have enjoyed some of the star status and free media attention for the past 18 months.
It would have been more of a fair fight.
As things stand now... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance...because people have already made up their minds. This is why equal media coverage is so important..early in the process, and throughout the campaign season, so that Americans have a chance to see all of the major candidates on an equal playing field.
That did not happen in this election cycle.
I know you are a Clinton supporter or Obama supporter...
Good for whoever the heck you support...
But please don't come here to insult my intelligence... ignoring the obvious by suggesting that there has been no lopsided coverage.
I have been watching Edwards... since 2003. Obama since 2004...and you don't have to tell me anything about Clinton. I'm intimately familiar with that nightmare.
The media has been unfair to Edwards like any populist candidate that comes along. It has been obvious for months that the media wanted a simple choice between two Wall Street-backed candidates Clinton and Obama. Even though Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa, the media spin is still a loss for Edwards but not Clinton.
I'll spot you the lopsided coverage and I still maintain that Edwards is not electable. Obama generated more excitement from the moment of his debut to the minds of many at the convention. Edwards has already been part of a losing ticket. If he was really that strong, I submit to you his campaign would be in better shape. This is almost (not quite, but almost) like saying Kucinich or Ron Paul would be electable but for the media's treatment. I think his populist message is lacking in depth and insufficient to win, and further he represents nothing but continued explicit partisanship which Iowa demonstrates increasingly appears to not be the flavor of the day with voters. Blame it on media if you want, but this is the same candidate who could not deliver his home state in a general election. I'll grant you media unfairness, if you'll grant me that as a candidate in the general election, Edwards has substantial weaknesses.
The reality is that Edwards gained strength with additional coverage (although never given parity with Clinton-Obama) having outpolled Hillary Clinton in Iowa. Edwards is far more mainstream than Kucinich or Paul who are definitely on the fringe.
Yes, Edwards was part of a losing ticket but you should also acknowledge that only one or two percent of the electorate base their vote on the VP choice. Kerry was the real loser in the 2004 election, not Edwards.
A populist approach can win the election. It isn't a popular message with the elites but the average person with a low to moderate income can relate to Edwards message. In contrast, Obama appeals more to the upscale "wine and cheese" crowd.
It isn't a matter of shallow partisanship but rather uniting the working class-middle class against the special interests that are destroying our standard of living. These voters are already populists. They are not divided that much on economic issues but rather split on social issues which have become the main distinction between the parties thanks to Clinton and Democrats serving up "trickle down" light economics. Unite the working class-middle class under a message of economic populism and Democrats win in '08.
re: Aaron and Alaine
I think it's amusing that A&A basically use the same language as the mass media to handicap Edwards' chances (i.e. "he's not electable in a general", not enough cash, etc.)
I don't agree that he's unelectable. Especially in this field and in this political climate. For the first time in 20+ years an authentic liberal could be elected.
Not enough cash? True to some extent. The idea is you win some primaries, get some momentum, and you get some donations. But that won't happen here since Obama has sucked all the love.
"This is almost (not quite, but almost) like saying Kucinich or Ron Paul would be electable but for the media's treatment."
You're right for once. It's not quite the same thing. At all.
"the minds of many at the convention."
The media elite always look for reinventions of Bobby, Jack, and the good ole' days of Camelot.
As a minority I can tell you I don't care about a minority getting elected. In my world purple lesbians with prosthetic limbs are all over the political scene. I'm over it. But, in all fairness, America needs it. There are plenty of countries the world over who have all ready elected females and members of outcast minorities within the community.
I think Edwards is the best candidate for me, but unfortunately for him, Obama is the more transcendent candidate. At least if you believe Chris Matthews and the rest of the political elite salivating with a hard on that makes Viagra-makers envious.
Edwards never had a chance, because his anti-poverty message sounds pro-Black to a lot of voters, and working class and middle-class voters were always going to say, "What about me, Mr. Edwards. I'm working class, middle class, and I need just as much attention as the poor do." The working and middle class are more likely to vote than the poor, and that's ONE of John Edwards' problems.
Another is that many of the poorest families are those headed by women and Blacks. We are unable to accept the proposition that the best way to raise our Black and women headed families is to elect the 44th consecutive white male president of the United States.
Historically, as demographic groups gained electoral power, they sent members of their own demographic group to Washington, began to share in patronage and get a legal framework that benefited their business interests, and that's how groups got ahead in America. Sending John Edwards back to Washington would simply reinforce the same inequalities that have always existed when white men controlled the House, the Senate and the White House.
Finally, they hypocrisy of Edwards' house with 10.5 bathrooms, and his having more than half of his 50,000,000 wealth invested in a mortgage company that has engaged in abusive sub-prime lending in New Orleans and then foreclosed on the homes of the poor . . . Edwards is a hypocrite and that seals his fate with a lot of people.
Aaron & Alaine,
Comparing Edwards with Kucinich & Ron Paul on the question of electability? That's ridiculous.
John Edwards is very electable. You don't become a U.S. Senator and part of a Democratic ticket by being on the fringes. Edwards is a very viable candidate.
And as far as being part of a losing ticket... he was the VP nominee. Edwards didn't get swiftboated... John Kerry did. John Kerry was the captain of that ship and he allowed his ship to be sunk by not standing up to the Republi-CON attackers with some backbone and responding to the propaganda that was being used against him.
And even with that, they still lost by a hair... It wasn't a blowout. They made it competitive against an incumbent with a huge media apparatus, and an unprecedented Republican attack machine on his side. Although the Kerry campaign was one of the most poorly managed campaigns in modern history...and the absolute worst that I have ever seen.
Amen Crooked Teeth,
Good points...
Francis,
I am aware of the Black propaganda against Edwards. I don't need to be reminded of that, and I won't get into a back and forth with you.
I was waiting for the "Black Blogger" to show up.
But you stated that he is not the candidate for the working class and middle class. Only someone who has not been paying attention (which is the case for a lot of "Black bloggers") could come to that conclusion. Issues of the Working Class and Middle Class are the center of gravity for his entire campaign and his platform. But I can understand how you couldn't see that...since he has hardly been covered by the media (except when they have attempted to swiftboat him).
I don't hold his money and his big house against him. All of the candidates are wealthy. I don't recall Blacks holding Jesse Jackson's big house against him... or the huge fees that he charges for speaking engagements. A Preacher with no congregation became a millionaire hustling you negroes for the past 35 years.... But that's o.k. because Jesse shares your Brown skin... and gets a pass.
CNN tried to swiftboat John Edwards and take him out of the mix over a year ago with that nonsense before his campaign really got going.
But Edwards is a first generation multi-millionaire in his immediate family. It's more admirable that anything. He didn't have millions passed down to him from mom and Dad, like most politicians today. He went out and earned it himself by lifting himself up, going to school, doing well, and working hard. Edwards is a self made man... not some plastic ------ like George W. Bush.
He is supposed to be punished for that?
That doesn't make him a hypocrite in my eyes. It makes some of the other priviledged candidates look like hypocrites when they try to talk about "the poor" in order to keep up with John Edward's message... but John isn't a hypocrite because he has money.
So you think the corporate Democrat Obama is going to magically solve all of the problems for so-called "Black America" because he's a Black man?
You are going to be dissapointed.
But I am not surprised that misguided negroes blindly support a Black candidate. Like sheep, Black folks have been following that same line of thinking for years, sending Black politicians to Washington. And what has that amounted to? Not a God Damn thing.
A bunch of wine and cheese eating negroes who are out of touch with the real needs and concerns of the people who they are supposed to be serving. Their Black political group is a relic, out of touch with the needs of the people. These are people who do nothing but pose, style and profile for the cameras. But to Black folks... styling for the cameras is considered hard work... they see it as fighting for the people. UNREAL!
Supporting the Black candidate because he's Black (and not because of his plan....policies, platform...substance) is the easy choice for Black folks, because it doesn't require doing any actual homework to learn the issues, examine the issues, and to figure out who best represents their interests. AND...it was completely expected. Black folks are very predictable when it comes to voting based on race instead of the actual substance of a candidate. They have been doing it for over 40 years (sending Blacks to Washington mainly for being Black & for not much else, thinking that the lives of Black folks would dramatically change).
It's intellectually lazy and it's the easy choice to make...but if history is any guide, it hasn't worked out too well for negroes.
Proof the original post was correct: and you won't find this in any newspaper except the Guardian, and interestingly, Forbes.com, although it is all around the blogosphere, commondreams.org, etc.
Corporate elite fear candidate Edwards
Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:06pm EST
By Kevin Drawbaugh - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class."
He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists."
Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.
"Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.
Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.
But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics.
One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business."
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
After this week's New Hampshire primaries, where he placed a distant third behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards might not seem so scary. He ran second in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week, trailing Obama and just ahead of Clinton.
Edwards suffered a blow on Thursday when Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry snubbed him and endorsed Obama. Edwards was Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in Kerry's failed Democratic bid for the White House in 2004.
BUSINESS'S FAVORITE UNCLEAR
Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.
These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November's election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.
Obama and Huckabee register largely as unknown quantities among business owners, both large and small, say lobbyists.
"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."
"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.
"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."
(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by John Wallace)
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Post a Comment