John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama

From CNN.com

Edwards endorses Obama, praises Clinton
From Ed Hornick
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
"The reason I'm here tonight is because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I," he told the boisterous crowd.

"There is one man who knows that knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up," Edwards said. "There is one man who knows in his heart there is time to create one America, not two ... and that man is Barack Obama."

Edwards also praised Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

"What she has shown ... is strength and character, and what drives her is something that every single one of us can and should appreciate," Edwards said. "She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel, and she's a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."

He said that when the nomination battle is over, "and it will be over soon, brothers and sisters ... we must come together as Democrats."

Rest of article at the link above.

Very strategic of the Obama campaign to roll out this endorsement to blunt the West Virginia loss.

Campaign Obituary: John Edwards

Despite weeks of assertions that he would continue to campaign up to the convention, John Edwards unexpectedly dropped out of the race today. Making an announcement from the same place he began his campaign more than a year ago, Edwards appeared in New Orleans to confirm that he was abandoning his second presidential bid.

Overshadowed since the outset by two so-called celebrity candidates, Edwards struggled to keep up with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton financially, falling behind in a media war that painted a two-person race. Putting most of his chips in Iowa's kickoff caucuses, he narrowly edged Clinton for second, but the final blow was probably dealt by his distant third place finish on Saturday in his home state of South Carolina. The campaign had acknowledged that their path to the nomination had become extremely difficult, but argued they intended to win as many delegates as they could to gain influence at the convention. Edwards was the driving force of the policy debate for Democrats, coming out with detailed plans on health care, education, and poverty relief. "It's time for me to step aside," Edwards told the crowd of supporters, "so that history can blaze its path."

So what impact will the decision have on the race going forward? Let's start with what we know. A brokered convention, always a long shot, is now almost certainly out of the question. Such a scenario always relied on Edwards capturing enough delegates to prevent either Obama or Clinton from securing the nomination outright. Now, with the field shrinking to two candidates, the path to the nomination should be much clearer after February 5.

An endorsement didn't come today, but one wasn't ruled out for the future. Edwards noted that he had spoken to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both having pledged to make the fight to end poverty a central part of their campaigns. Despite a meeting with Clinton last week that set off rumors of a potential deal, it seems unlikely that Edwards would back the former first lady. Advisor David "Mudcat" Saunders said today, "I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he does not endorse Hillary Clinton." Saunders doesn't speak for the candidate, but Edwards has criticized Clinton since the campaign began on Iraq, NAFTA, and representing the status quo.

The question regarding an endorsement seems to be whether he will give it to Obama or simply remain on the sidelines. Our sense, pure speculation, is that Edwards is not a man to remain neutral--expect an Obama endorsement and soon.

The far more difficult question to answer is where his supporters will go. Edwards' support seems to be made up of two separate groups, which could split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 2004, he campaigned as a Southern centrist who could win in November, attracting much of his support from white blue-collar voters, some of whom stayed with him this cycle. Since the 2004 campaign ended, however, Edwards has moved considerably to the left, attracting a great deal of liberal support and becoming a favorite of the lefty blogosphere.

These voters, 10-15% of the Democratic electorate according to recent national polls, now have a decision to make. Clinton has been more successful in courting blue-collar support, having equaled Edwards in union backing. Of course, Edwards' departure may also allow the anti-Clinton vote to align fully behind Obama. Edwards strongest support has come from white men and they could become the key swing group going forward. Some believe the racial overtones of the campaign will drive these voters to Clinton in the South, while others suggest they've already passed on Clinton and will turn to the next best alternative. In the end, Obama should stand to benefit the most, but perhaps not by as wide a margin as some would suspect.

One thing is clear--Edwards' withdrawal creates a head-to-head battle that will first present itself at a debate in California tomorrow night. With voters across the country now without a candidate, the stakes could not be higher.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Sparks Fly In South Carolina Showdown

In the most heated debate of the cycle, the three Democrats on stage tonight in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, noted clear distinctions of both policy and personality. The increased ferocity comes both as an extension of the typically behind the scenes surrogate fight that has been going on for weeks and as a signal of the increased stakes after split decisions in Iowa and New Hampshire with February 5 looming on the horizon.

Both Clinton and Obama dug into the opposition research file tonight, frequently referencing past votes and apparent contradictions. Obama appeared eager to stand up to the Clinton machine and prove he has the fire to withstand the grueling election season. Obama's frustration at weeks of Clinton needling was visible throughout much of the first hour. Obama and Clinton traded blows over Bill Clinton's role in the campaign, Obama's praise for Ronald Reagan, health care plans, economic stimulus offerings, and the Iraq War. Obama went to great lengths to defend himself from every change, which made him seem either sharp or defensive, depending on one's perspective.

Clinton, for her part, was not about to back down, though her aggressiveness was pushed into outright anger at times. Responding to Obama's suggestion that she was a "corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart," Clinton sharply replied that Obama was "representing your contributor Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago." That exchange was the perhaps the most heated of the night, but it certainly wasn't the only tense moment.

All things equal, John Edwards was the clear winner of this debate. He made the most of his time--rising above the Clinton vs. Obama tit-for-tat and backing up his points with a wealth of specifics. All things, of course, are not equal, but Edwards showed he remained a formidable debater with courtroom prowess. Unlike previous debates, this wasn't a two-on-one against Hillary Clinton, rather Edwards frequently teamed up with the former first lady to drive a point against Obama. On issues like health care and voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate, Edwards was unusually sharp against his oft ally. Without a doubt, Edwards was good, but did he do enough to change the momentum of his campaign?

In the end, the trio offered interesting contrasts on a variety of issues, with differing visions of leadership beyond 2008. With a supportive audience, the King holiday as a backdrop, and a lead in the state's polls, Obama is our default winner, though none of the three should leave the debate disappointed.

Clip of a few of the bitter exchanges in the SC Debate.


Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards

By Kevin Drawbaugh / Reuters

WASHINGTON - 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."

From Reuters

(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by John Wallace)

_______________________

This just supports my earlier comments regarding the media's motive for blocking out John Edwards from the political race....and from the American political conscience entirely. I have mentioned before that Corporate America along with the Republican establishment were scared to death of John Edwards and his message.

The U.S. media is owned and controlled by some of the biggest Corporations in the World, and they would have a problem with many of Edwards's proposed policies.

_________________________

Related Posts

Media Blackout Continues for John Edwards

A Look at the Media's Coverage of the Primaries- John Edwards Blackout confirmed

Out Of New Hampshire: The Race Is On

Wow. What a difference a few hours can make! Going into tonight, many were writing the Clinton campaign obituary and now she is perhaps the favorite again. The Obama campaign expected to win. Heck, even the Clinton campaign expected Obama to win. All the pundits, Political Realm included, were wrong and the race was turned on its head.

How did Clinton do it? In New Hampshire, Clinton dominated the female vote, easily out-pacing Obama, who had won the group in Iowa. Whether that's the result of Clinton's near tears yesterday or a more open campaign that shifted focus somewhat, we don't know. The polling we've seen over the past few days gave Obama a lead of nearly 10 points, but perhaps those numbers were simply soft. Perhaps there were a significant number of late deciders that broke for Clinton. Perhaps the questions raised about Obama's experience, record, and readiness to lead paid off for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the voters of New Hampshire wanted this thing to turn into a race, rather than a coronation.

In the end, it seems like we simply misjudged the state of the race. Obama was over-hyped out of Iowa, while everyone underestimated Clinton's superior organization, establishment backing, and appeal with voters in New Hampshire. Most suspected the vast number of independents would provide fertile soil for Obama, especially compared to Iowa. However, the number of first time participants was down tonight from Iowa and it's likely that those independents fit right into Clinton's target profile--blue collar workers. We do know one thing--the Clinton campaign won't badmouth New Hampshire as it did Iowa a few days ago.

Of course, let's not get ahead of ourselves again. The narrative out of the first two contests is decidedly unclear. Barack Obama's Iowa victory was a huge shock to much of America. Will this Clinton win be as surprising? For political junkies, sure it is, but for the average voter who may not be as tuned in to this race I'm not so sure. The Obama campaign will be quick to point out that Clinton had a lead in New Hampshire just a week ago. To the contrary, the Clinton campaign is hoping that she will be portrayed as the "Comeback Kid" tomorrow, just as her husband was 16 years ago. Indeed, the shift in the Granite State over the past few hours has been simply stunning. For all the talk that Iowa and New Hampshire hold too much power, look at what they have given us--a real race on both sides.

So where do the Democrats go from here? It's on to Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama seemed to have all the momentum this morning. He is apparently going to pick up a major union endorsement in Nevada tomorrow--one earned more because of his victories (they were likely assuming a New Hampshire win just like everyone else) than because of his positions. Many believed that endorsement could have gone to either of Obama's key rivals and we have to wonder if the union is rethinking things tonight. In South Carolina, Obama's Iowa victory showed black voters, who will make up much of the electorate, that he can win in white America. Clinton, however, has strong ties in the black community, so will a New Hampshire win bring those voters back to her campaign?

The campaigns of John Edwards and especially Bill Richardson will likely reevaluate after tonight's results. Richardson clearly has no chance of winning this thing, while John Edwards is all but out of it as well. Both campaigns should be running out of funds soon, making it even more difficult to compete going forward.

On the Republican side, things played out in a much more expected manner. John McCain was the clear winner, though his margin was surprising to some. He overcame a campaign in shambles this summer, a media that left him for dead, an unpopular immigration plan, and support for a surge in Iraq that wasn't working. In the end, the campaign was tightened up, the media came back to him, his immigration position remained unpopular, but better explained, and the situation in Iraq started to improve. He is now well positioned for the contests to follow in Michigan and South Carolina and the win tonight will infuse some much needed cash.

For Romney, the collapse is shocking. His control of the first two contests looked insurmountable this summer and into the fall and now he finds himself in perilous position. He has family ties in Michigan, but faces McCain with momentum and Huckabee in a more friendly environment. If he can't somehow defy the odds there, Romney is certainly done. Fred Thompson has already moved on to South Carolina and Huckabee will join him there tomorrow. Huckabee's strong third tonight--New Hampshire was never expected to be his state--sets up the rest of the race as seemingly Huckabee vs. McCain. Giuliani, though happy that the early contests are producing mixed results, has seen his national lead deteriorate. In Florida, a state where he has devoted much of his recent attention, he now finds himself in fourth place in a new poll.

What do we take away from tonight? Both sides have major comeback stories--Clinton in the short term and McCain in the long term. There are no frontrunners anymore. Look for a fresh set of presidential rankings from us before the week is out as the campaign resets for the next phase. Without a doubt, the race is on.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Danny Glover & Harry Belafonte Stand With John Edwards

Although John Edwards's chances for winning the Democratic nomination and the White House have evaporated (and the media decided months ago that he was not going to be President), Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte have both endorsed Edwards for President. Let them tell you why- from the links above.

A Look At the Media's Coverage of The Primaries- John Edwards Blackout Confirmed

The On The Media program ran a segment on the media's coverage of the race for President so far. They confirmed the media's virtual Blackout of John Edwards.

*********************
From the Program

Journalists covering the 2008 presidential race have spent the past year-and-a-half obsessing over every incremental development. But after Thursday's caucus in Iowa they can finally respond to actual voting. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism took a look at some of the coverage.



________________________________

See more on the media blackout of John Edwards, including the numbers.


Americans vote how they are told to vote.
The media sets the agenda.... not the people.
And the media decided months ago that John Edwards would not be President.
Obama and Clinton are the only two choices for Democrats.
Being the obedient sheep that they are known to be, Americans will vote as the media has instructed them to.

It's not a issue of Edwards being done. It's an issue of Edwards never being allowed in the game in the first place.

This is why we need fundamental changes in our electoral system....to allow candidates equal time and unbiased coverage (by law).
Other countries already do this.

The U.S. needs a strong independent election authority and new laws/policies so that the corporate media cannot hijack the process.
The media's motive here is ratings... They set the stage with the Obama/Clinton Show because it was the biggest ratings draw....not because they were the most electable candidates or the best candidates in the race.
And with so little time between Iowa and New Hampshire...and with the continuing media blackout... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance to make up any ground. He was doomed from the start.
The media sets the agenda in this Country and has a greater role in choosing Presidents than voters do.

This is one of the big reasons why American elections are a complete farce.

The Rise of Obama - Can He Win A General Election?

And Why I Supported John Edwards

None of the candidates were really a choice for me. However, out of the line-up that was presented, I would have preferred to see John Edwards get the nomination. But the corporate media decided over a year ago that John Edwards would not be President.

The Obama/Clinton Show represented the biggest ratings draw and the biggest money maker for the networks, and therefore the media set the agenda for voters and decided who the “favorite” candidates were going to be. The media clearly decided (for the people) who the favorites were, and have spent the last 18 months bombarding the American public with coverage….herding the public in the direction of the media’s choosing.

Americans vote how they are told to vote….always have. This year will be no different. Like obedient sheep, Americans will participate in the Obama/Clinton made for TV Movie. I will watch the movie, but i’m not participating in the production.
I have never participated in an American election ceremony, and never will. But I will remain an avid observer.

My cynicism has not gone anywhere. If anything, this election cycle is (so far) only making me more disgusted with the political system, and the electoral process in particular. This election is a sham to me…..as all recent elections have been. The media has more influence in choosing Presidents than voters do. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

In my case, John Edwards is (or “was” now…because he’ll be done here pretty soon) …but he was the only candidate with a message that resonated with me. He was the only candidate with poverty as a focus of his platform. He was the only candidate with Hurricane Katrina as a part of his platform…and he had a plan for Katrina… (how many of the other candidates went down to volunteer numerous times…when the cameras were not there?). He was the only candidate with a focus on the working poor… And in my view, he would have been more electable in a General Election. He’s a Southern Democrat…just what the Democratic Party needs for a nominee. It’s no coincidence that the last 2 Democratic Presidents were Southern Democrats… the last 3 if you count Gore. lol.

He’s not the perfect candidate… But he had “great” President potential… almost Kennedy-esqe (not that i’m a big fan of Kennedy).
But Black folks (as a whole)… are some of the most loyal Sheep in the electorate…. so it’s no surprise that folks would vote for someone who looks like them, but has not necessarily articulated a plan or platform that best represents their interests.

To me, Obama seems to be more along the lines of an elitist Wall Street corporate Democrat…. willing to negotiate with entrenched corporate interests….and “hope” that they come to their senses….rather than someone who will fight his ass off for my best interests (at least some of my interests) as a Black man struggling in the working class…and stuck in the working class. (See great commentary "I Don't Need A Candidate To Hope For Me, I Need One To Fight For Me"). His stump speeches and his message never really caught on for me. And being staunchly independent, I had no interest in jumping on his bandwagon just because he was Black. That whole idea is insulting to me…. I hate when people bring this up… assuming, in a roundabout way, that I should automatically back the man because of our shared skin pigment.

I recall Obama saying just last week at a rally that he helped put together legislation that prevented Senators from accepting meals from lobbyists… But who cares about a f—-ing meal when lobbyists are still buying members of Congress and literally writing the legislation. K Street is as strong as ever. In other words, he’s too superficial in his challenge of the Washington DC culture and corporate control of our government. He should be talking about closing K Street down… PERIOD. These lobbyists have all sorts of special access to elected officials…both in Congress and the White House. Yet the citizens have zero access. Ironically… the original meaning of “lobbyist” referred to a time when the average citizen would go to Congress to lobby their elected officials. Access was practically open at that time. Try reaching your elected official today. Good luck! Good luck even getting a response to a letter. If you are lucky…. IF you are lucky, you will get a form letter back, thanking you for your effort to contact Sen. or Congressman Joe Blow.

But the test now for Obama will be winning a General Election. That’s the true test… winning purple States. He will need more than “hope” and a smile to overcome the brutal beating that the Republican attack machine & Conservative corporate media is about to put on him. AND FOLKS… THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY…. IT WILL NOT BE FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. I can’t stress that enough.

People say…well he won in 2 White States… well that was a Caucus and Primary, with mostly folks from his own Party participating. That will not necessarily translate into success in a General Election….even with some support from independents.

But if he wins the nomination… I will support him. Because the alternative is just unthinkable. Two of the Republi-CON candidates- Romney and Huckabee- want to turn the State into an Imperialist Theocracy, and the other two top candidates- Giuliani and McCain- are warmongering lunatics who will give us the Bush+ Plan… The same Bush administration policies on steroids. It will essentially be an extension of BushCo. Both McCain and Giuliani have the most prowar military and foreign policy teams and they have both expressed an interest in taking the nation into more wars. John McCain is the biggest warhawk in the U.S. Senate…has been for many years.

The problem with Obama is that I just don’t think he can beat a top Republican in a General Election. If McCain gets the nod… Obama will be in trouble.
And he could also struggle with any of the other top Republicans.

Obama as an ideal opponent for the Republicans, because they see him as one of the most beatable Democrats.

At any rate… this year will be interesting on many levels.

Obama chats with Brian Williams

Senator Barack Obama sat down and talked with Brian Williams today. In lengthy interviews, Obama is able to show his thoughtfulness on the issues.

With the New Hampshire primary coming tomorrow, 2 new polls (USA Today- Gallup and CNN-WMUR) show Barack Obama opening up a 2 digit lead in the granite state. Now, if you have listened to my podcast then you heard political science Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell tell us to ignore national polls and to look at the local polls done by local people. CNN did something interesting by teaming with WMUR they provided the resources for a local TV station to conduct a local poll. (I'm just guessing. I hope that's how it went because that would provide the best window into the future. On the other hand, if CNN did a local poll with their national people then paid WMUR to put their name on it. That would be a disaster. That would be a recipe for failure.)

On another note, much has been made about Hillary Clinton's tearing up earlier today. Then we have the retarded analysis. Look, this is an emotional time. Hillary has wanted to be president for a long, long time. She was in position. 6 months ago, the talking heads were giving her the democratic nomination. If you hear something often enough you start to begin to believe it. She is now in for a serious fight that she just might lose. As TCR points out, the media can't have it both ways. On one hand, Hillary is cold and calculating. On the other hand, now, she is a weak emotional wreck as ABC is trying to spin this. Of course, the reality is neither. She is a real person whose dreams maybe slipping away. Hell, students walked out on a Bill Clinton speech at Dartmouth yesterday.

This race is heating up. Now, who can stay positive? Obama is getting attacked from both sides. Hillary is saying that he isn't ready. (As far as I know there is no readiness test. Harry Truman wasn't really ready but did a great job. Hell, Bill Clinton fumbled the ball when he was elected taking on Gays in the Military as his first major issue.) He hasn't thought things through (like she knows what he is thinking). John Edwards is attacking from the left. He is saying that Barack is too cozy with lobbyists.

Video here.

St. Louis Woman Kills Children Then Herself - Felt Hopeless

Tragic story about someone being pushed to do the unthinkable. Of course she did the wrong thing, but I can see how the pressures of today's economy could give the feeling of hopelessness.

And some say that there are no "two Americas". But the people who usually say that are those who are in the top half, doing well, making a comfortable living, and they don't have to decide between their prescription drugs/healthcare, and food. People in the top half often either don't see those in the bottom half of America, or they simply choose to ignore that they exists.

____________________________

Report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Mom who killed girls, self felt hopeless
By Jeremy Kohler
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

JENNINGS — The woman who shot her two daughters and herself to death on New Year's Eve had been distraught because she felt she could not successfully raise a family, police said Wednesday.

The woman, LaRhonda N. Mason, 29, was homeless, jobless and in debt. She relied on friends for shelter, shuffling from house to house with Teleanna, 11, and Jazelyn, 3. She made sure they were fed and clothed and, by all accounts, did her best, said Jennings police Sgt. Shawn Lane.

Her car was towed just after Christmas and she felt all opportunity was lost with it, Lane said. She was inundated with bills. Without a car, she couldn't work. Without a job she couldn't provide a home.

Two days before the deaths, she penned a four-page suicide letter thanking everyone who had tried to help her, Lane said.

On Monday night, she packed her belongings into a plastic bag and set off with her daughters from the home of a friend who had given her shelter. The man was a friend whom she had known from a fast-food job.

The friend followed her in his car, talking to her out his window, urging her to come home, Lane said. When he pulled over to get out, she pulled out a revolver.

At 6:15, outside a wireless phone shop near West Florissant and Apricot avenues, she tossed the suicide note to the ground, shot each girl once in the head, and then herself.

Mason and Teleanna were pronounced dead at the scene. Jazelyn was taken to St. Louis Children's Hospital and died a short time later. Each had been hit by a single gunshot.

Inside the older girl's knapsack was a new journal, a Christmas present. It was signed: "A journal for my little girl."

Police at first believed the friend had been the shooter. He was partially clad and had been following Mason and her daughters. But then they found the suicide note and confirmed that the handwriting was hers.

Investigators learned later that the friend, whom they would not identify, had let Mason store her belongings in his home. They had stayed with him for a few days, and he was urging them to stay longer.

On Monday, Mason's sister Andrea, of St. Louis, published a memorial to her on the Web, featuring un-captioned photographs of a woman and two girls frolicking, laughing. But the family declined to be interviewed.

Media Blackout Continues for John Edwards

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

The Aftermath of the Iowa Caucus - Americas Broken System

I see the Obama win in Iowa as the Democrats worst nightmare coming true. A Trainwreck in the making.

The corporate media will still act as if Edwards doesn't exist. He will continue to face a media Blackout. The networks will continue to spin the election as a Obama/Clinton contest. Why? Because it is good for their ratings. That has been one of the motivations behind the whole Obama/Clinton nonsense all along. This has been a media driven election for Obama and Clinton. Neither candidate belongs anywhere near the top tier. But they were placed there by corporations who decided that this was what the political landscape should look like.

The fact is... Obama & Clinton are 2 of the least electable candidates that Democrats have to offer (among the serious candidates/not counting Gravel or Kucinich).

Who owns the big media? The same kinds of corporations that John Edwards says he wants to stand up to. So that is another factor in this race.

There is no way that Obama can match a top Republican in a General election. He is not the best Democrat for winning Purple States. And he will get nothing in the South. Yes, he won in Iowa...but that does not translate into victory in a General Election where there will be 50 separate and unequal contests taking place. And keep in mind, this will be after the Republican political/media machine gets done with him.

In fact, Obama would struggle just to hold on to States that Democrats won in the last 2 elections...such as Pennsylvania.

In short, the Democrats are once again headed for a Trainwreck.... with either Obama or Clinton.

It's sad to see this happening to Edwards...who would make a great President. Edwards may be finished soon, because so much was riding on Iowa. His campaign may have been doomed before it had a chance to get started, because the media made a concerted effort to take him out of the mix from the beginning. He never got a fair shot. This fundamentally flawed American election system needs to be overhauled. The allocation of media time to candidates, etc all must be regulated if this Country wants to have anything resembling free and fair elections. Media steering should be stopped and public polling before elections should be regulated or eliminated altogether.

It is a miracle that this man was able to come in second place with 30% under the circumstances....with no media coverage to speak of (until very late), and without the big money. Such a good showing under those conditions is an sign of his strength.

But because of the media blackout, he will probably not be able to rise in the polls in New Hampshire in such a short period of time, at least not enough to be competitive there. This is why equal & balanced media coverage is so important for candidates.

This just reaffirms my disgust and disinchantment with the American election process.... the structure of the political system itself is undemocratic at its core.
And this also reaffirms my long held belief that the media is the most powerful institution in the Country and plays too large a role in influencing American Elections. For one thing, the media sets the agenda for the people, and frames the debate. It's supposed to be the other way around... the people are supposed to set the agenda and frame the debate in an election year. But in this Country the media decides these things. And it also decides who the favorite candidates are going to be (by favoring certain candidates over others)...steering Americans like sheep (because intellectually lazy Americans allow this to happen).

This is why I don't bother participating. I have always hated this undemocratic system of politics. The American Election system & political system itself are so fundamentally broken.

Obama's "victory" doesn't give me "hope" at all... It actually does a lot to confirm my beliefs about the flawed electoral system in this country. And it doesn't make me excited at all about ever participating in the American system. My cynicism & skepticism about American politics has only increased....not decreased. I see more of our so-called Democracy slipping away with each election cycle.

Until there is a serious move towards election reform- which will never happen in this Country- I will never be excited about American politics. I have never been inclined to even register to vote, let alone take part in the actual ceremony. The motivation is just not there. And this current election cycle is an example of why I don't participate. And I hate when imbeciles try to tell me to vote for the sake of voting, that I should vote because i'm Black and that I need to exercise the right....EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT??????? The "Black" reasoning is the dumbest of all... it usually makes me want to scream. Voting in this Country has become ceremonial. Because the system that people are voting in IS NOT Democratic. That's like telling a person in Russia or Pakistan that they should go and vote so that they can exercise their right to do so. That logic has never made sense to me and it never will.

I won't spend much time or effort covering the rest of the 2008 election ceremony.... I will only make a half-assed effort. Because the election is a farce (as usual). But I will cover it for info-tainment purposes.

__________________________

A Daily Kos Entry That Sums Up My View

Karl Rove Is Laughing His Ass Off Right Now

Previous Post

Iowa- A Test For American Democracy

Analysis of the Race In Iowa

Hear one last discussion & analysis of the Republican and Democratic races in Iowa, courtesy of OnPointRadio. This was a very good discussion that got heated a couple of times.

LISTEN HERE

The Iowa Caucus: A Test For American Democracy

....Well, a test of what little Democracy that this Country has left


When I think of U.S. Democracy and our system of voting, the concept of free and fair elections doesn’t come to mind. The fundamentally flawed U.S. political system with its 2 dominant parties limiting voter choice (often between bad and worse), and its culture of facilitating corruption, doesn’t inspire much confidence that the politicians will really be accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. We live in a political system where the corporate media often chooses the next President; playing the same role that State-Run media plays in less than Democratic regimes overseas. Even a former U.S. President has admitted that the U.S. voting system does not meet basic international standards for free and fair elections. Elections in this Country have been flawed, and heavily influenced by corporate interests for the last several decades.

But recently, the corruption of U.S. elections seems to have gotten worse.
Today, we are seeing the same fundamentally flawed election system at work- a system where a candidate can buy their way into the White House. A system where the major corporate media outlets attempt to choose the next President by directly and indirectly telling Americans who they should vote for, or at the very least, they suggest as much with their excessive coverage of one or two candidates while giving little if any coverage to other viable candidates. Today, politicians don’t even make an effort to hide the fact that they have been bought. And the big media outlets make it pretty plain to see that they are favoring one candidate over another, and it shows in their unbalanced coverage.

A free and fair election system would have all viable candidates receiving equal time. But unfortunately this is not a part of the U.S. system. The media has gotten so good at influencing the American electorate that people are willing to vote against their own best interests, time and time again.

Combine a flawed, often undemocratic election system, a corrupt 2 Party monopoly, a corporate media allied with the corrupt political establishment, and a citizenry that- for the most part- is not politically engaged, and you end up with the situation we have today. A political system where politicians are not accountable, and election victories depend more on how much money a candidate has than on the substance of a candidates platform, plan, message and track record.

We are once again seeing the same dynamics in the current Presidential campaign. The corporate media has not only framed the debate- determining what issues are important for the voters- but it is also attempting to tell Americans who to vote for. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani are the media’s chosen favorites. While on the Democratic side, the media’s chosen candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- motivated by the ratings that a white woman vs. a Black man would create for the networks. Clinton and Obama have dominated T.V. coverage, despite the fact that neither would represent the best candidate that the Democratic Party could bring forth for a General Election. Hillary Clinton is not the most electable candidate for a General Election contest. We have argued the case on this to exhaustion… But the facts are clear on that point. Hillary also does not represent the “change” that Democrats, and American voters as a whole, say that they want in a candidate. She represents the old Washington establishment.

If you want more of the same Washington politics, the same elitism, the same corruption, the same foreign policy wrapped in a different package, the same corporate stranglehold on the political leadership, a healthcare system that leaves the insurance companies and drug companies in charge, the same atmosphere where voters have no access to their elected officials (unless they can afford a $3500.00 per plate dinner), and if you want a candidate who will struggle to win moderates and independents in a General Election, then by all means, vote for Hillary.

Barack Obama? Obama would also be very vulnerable in a General Election. As great as Obama is and as good as his message might be, he cannot generate the broad support needed in a General Election to win (and flip) purple States over a wide geographical area. The Democrats must be able to win purple States like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee & others. Obama is not the best candidate to get it done, especially against a well oiled, tested and proven Republican machine, that is licking its chops, hoping for an Obama nomination. The Republican machine would destroy Obama in a General Election, making the dismantling of John Kerry look like childs play by comparison.

But there is a Democrat who could get it done - John Edwards. But if you watch the news coverage, it is almost as if Edwards is not even running for President. I have been watching for Edwards coverage closely, especially over the last several weeks. Each night, Chris Matthews has talked about the matchup between Clinton & Obama, and has hardly mentioned John Edwards. The few times when Edwards has been mentioned, it has always been in the context of “Oh yeah…that guy… the loser”. There has clearly been an effort to take John Edwards out of the mix. There also seems to be a push to get Democrats to nominate an unelectable or less electable candidate. The Republicans would welcome (and greatly appreciate) Clinton or Obama as an opponent. There is no greater rallying tool for Republicans than a Clinton nomination. That would certainly stir the Republican grassroots, as Republican strategists have admitted themselves. In fact, Republican cheerleaders would not have to work nearly as hard to motivate the troops with Clinton as an opponent. Democrats would be doing the work for the Republicans with a Clinton nomination. But the Republicans fear John Edwards.

The Iowa Caucus will be the perfect test of the U.S. election process. The results will either be further confirmation of the broken & corrupt system, or a sign that Americans really do want change. Will Iowa Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media over the past several months, or will they make a choice based on their own best interests? Will Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media, or will they choose the candidate with the best chance to win the General Election? Will Caucus goers confirm the idea that a politician can buy his or her way into the White House or will they send the message that Iowans can't be bought? Will Caucus goers confirm that American media and corporate interests control the debate & the ballot box rather than the American people? Will Caucus goers confirm the worst about the American system or will they provide a flicker of hope that something different is possible?

All of these questions will be answered on January 3, 2008. I fully expect my view of American politics to be confirmed, but I am having a little prayer vigil in the back of my mind, hoping that I am wrong. I am hoping that Iowa Caucus goers will disappoint me in a good way and put some doubt in my theory. I hope they prove me very wrong.

But the Iowa Caucus is not free of flaws. There is the issue of Republicans possibly impacting the vote, since non-Democrats can participate. Could Republicans help to orchestrate a Clinton or Obama victory in order to boost Republican chances in a General Election? I wouldn't doubt that this might be a plan for Republican strategists. We've seen just about everything else from Republican strategists before....so this is not so far fetched.

But even with an Edwards win, the system has been rigged in such a way that a big money candidate can win the nomination on the “Super Tuesday“, when a huge number of States are decided at once. Once upon a time in this Country, before Democracy faded into almost complete obscurity, a candidate had to work at a more steady pace to win. Now it can all be decided in a very short amount of time… With the recent changes in the process, Iowa just doesn’t count like it used to.

John Edwards On NPR

John Edwards takes part in a radio discussion about his campaign and the issues facing voters. Listen Here

The program (onpoint) unfortunately devotes the first 15-20 minutes to pundits, clearly attempting to shape the discussion. They should have spent the entire hour speaking with the candidate. There are enough pundits on CNN and FOX distorting his message. But there seems to be filters and pundits everywhere these days.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to get all of the attention.....(especially Clinton... the corporate media is clearly attempting to tell voters who to support).

17 Year Old Girl Dies After Insurance Company Interferes With Doctors Care

Another Story of Legal Murder By An American Corporation

This comes just after Bush vetoed an expansion of S-Chip (twice).

This also comes at a time when Americans are close to crowning Hillary Clinton as their next leader...even though she is one of the top recipients of corrupt Lobbying money from the health insurance industry and the drug companies. And she is supposed to reform healthcare? She is supposed to be the "change" candidate?

This is why I believe American voters are politically/intellectually lazy. It's much easier for Americans to be told how to vote (by the Corporate media) than to do their homework and vote for their best interests. This kind of laziness is the reason why the Country is in the hole that it's in now. And with Clinton, the hole will only get deeper. She will sell you out to the Corporations completely....and send you right down the river with no paddle and no life jacket...

I just hope that the people of Iowa are paying attention....

Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian

The family of a California teenager plan to sue her health insurer which refused to pay for a liver transplant until hours before and she died on Thursday night.
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.

The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. Although she was fully insured and had a matching donor, Cigna refused to pay on the grounds that her healthcare plan "does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services".

Cigna's rejection on December 11 led Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA medical centre, including the head of its transplant unit, to write a letter to protest that the treatment which they proposed was neither experimental nor unproven. They called on the firm to urgently review its decision.

In the absence of a response from Cigna, doctors told the Sarkisyan family that the only alternative would be for the family to pay. But they could not afford the immediate down payment of $75,000 (£38,000).

The family, backed by nurses, relatives and Sarkisyan's friends, mounted a protest of 150 people outside Cigna's Glendale offices. "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die," the teenager's mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, told the crowd.

The demo was amplified by an internet campaign orchestrated by the liberal Daily Kos website and other blogs that bombarded Cigna's HQ in Philadephia. In the middle of the rally, a note was handed to Mrs Sarkisyan saying that Cigna had decided to reverse its decision.

"Cigna HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant," it said in a statement.
The news drew cheers from the crowd, but they quickly grew sombre when they heard Sarkisyan's condition had deteriorated. A few hours later, her life support was switched off.

"She passed away, and the insurance [company] is responsible for this," Mrs Sarkisyan told the Los Angeles Daily News.

"Why did it take public humiliation for a multibillion-dollar insurance company to force them to provide appropriate medical care?" asked Charles Idelson of the California Nurses Association.

"This is what's wrong with our health system - insurers decide treatment, not doctors."

The protests over Sarkisyan's case point to growing public disenchantment with the healthcare system in America.

Politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for the presidential race next year have prepared plans for reform to bring the 47 million uninsured Americans into the healthcare net, and to improve terms for those already insured like Sarkisyan.

The subject was given an added boost this summer by Michael Moore's documentary on the state of the American health service, Sicko.

Moore refers to the case of Sarkisyan on his website, under the simple banner: "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Following the teenager's death, Cigna issued another statement yesterday.

"Their loss is immeasurable, and our thoughts and prayers are with them," it said. "We deeply hope that the outpouring of concern, care and love that are being expressed for Nataline's family help them at this time."

The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn.

____________________________

Also See Coverage from Rawstory

Nurses Association Says Cigna Should Have Listened To Her Doctors and Approved The Transplant

Support For Edwards Growing In Iowa

This supports what I have been saying all along. Now that we are getting close to Caucus night, Iowans are giving Edwards a closer look.

He now leads in the State according to a Poll released today.... although, as I stated, Polls don't mean much. However, it means a little more for Edwards, because he is the most viable candidate of the top three. The survey also indicates that he leads among "second choices".

Read more here.

John Edwards Is In A Good Position To Take Iowa

You read it here first :)

Expanding on an earlier post...

I am glad Iowa is first in the election (or coronation) process.

I don't have much confidence in Iowa's voters necessarily.... American voters as a whole are a little lazy when it comes to politics, being aware of the actual issues, and when it comes to why they support certain candidates. I saw one e-mail that someone sent to CNN a few days ago which stated that they were supporting Hillary Clinton because they loved the Bill Clinton years. NOT because of her policy positions, actual experience, platform, campaigning, background, track record, honesty, etc. Go figure! I think I mentioned this idiocy before...about Americans having a habit of voting for symbols & last names instead of Candidates & policies. This is how we ended up with George W... people thought they were voting for George H.W. These are two different men, supported by different cadres of people, with different views of the world, and are men with VERY different experience levels. Talk about novice vs. Powerful Statesman/Master Politician.

In fact, I don't have much of a reason to feel confident about anything related to the corrupt and undemocratic American political system. Based on the facts about America's broken political system and all the nonsense that I have seen, I probably should not have any hope when it comes to John Edwards. But it is Iowa's system that gives me a little more confidence about Edwards's chances there. I don't like making predictions, but for months now I have been saying that Iowa was an opportunity for Edwards to make a good showing. Although, he believes that he is lagging and that he is not where he had planned to be in Iowa at this point. A guy named Obama ruined the show. But Edwards will probably be able to weather the challenge from Obama.

Why is Edwards still in the race? Because Polls mean little in the Iowa Caucus process. Throw the Polls out of the window.

I hate to use wikipedia for anything, but it provided the clearest, most succinct description of the Caucus process that I have found online. I was going to explain it myself, but I started to develop a headache about halfway through. So just how does the Iowa Caucus process work?

"The Iowa caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states. The caucus is generally defined as a "gathering of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, or public libraries. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.

Unlike the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected.

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.

The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least that many caucus participants in that precinct. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses."

Here is a similar explanation from IowaCaucus.org

The Iowa Caucus is not a vote like you would see in a typical primary. The Caucus is a deliberative process that is very fluid. The January Caucus will probably be one of the most contentious Caucuses in years.

There are several things about the Caucus process that are in Edwards's favor:

#1. 17 year olds can participate (as long as they will be 18 by election time). Edwards has a strong following from young Iowans.... just like Obama. The media has counted on new, young Iowans to stay home. This is a mistake in my opinion. This Caucus will be different. A new generation is coming into its own. The war in Iraq, Climate change, and other issues have awaken young people. Young folks are now taking matters into their own hands. Edwards connected with young people early in his campaign. Edwards also has an impressive plan for dealing with Climate change. His advocacy for the poor and middle class is also appealing. Young people don't have the same connection to Clinton. She represents the "business as usual", "old guard" to many teens and 20 somethings. I believe young folks will shock the nation come Caucus night.

#2. In more ways than one, Iowans use "viability" as part of their process. From a technical point of view, each candidates group will have to garner at least 15% in the first round of the Caucus process in order to remain viable. This will almost surely make this a 3 way race early. Edwards has a chance to pick up support from the unviable groups... Richardson is close to the Clintons and may give his support to Hillary. But the others may go for Edwards. In addition to that support, he may also get support from undecideds.... which could be 10% or more of the total participants. When you add support from the undecided's and from the other candidates who didn't make the cut, Edwards could have enough to win.

Also, there is another viability test that is important to Iowans. That viability test has to do with who would be the strongest candidate in a general election. Hillary has too many negatives. And Obama....as great as he is, may be too vulnerable as a general election candidate. Although I would love to see him as a VP. The Republicans (and even some Democrats) are already starting to use dirty tricks against Obama. And the colorline is still very present in America....as much as some people would like to ignore it, or wish it away. Could Obama generate the kind of wide geographical support needed for a General election? Probably not. Iowans will figure this out very quickly and will go to an alternate choice. Many Obama supporters will likely switch to Edwards before the end of the night. They certainly won't support Hillary.

Edwards may not only win Iowa...but he may win in convincing fashion.

#3. From what I have read/heard, Edwards has a broader distribution of support throughout the State than the other candidates, especially from rural areas. Obama has support from more isolated pockets. Broad distribution of support is more important in the Caucus process than concentrated areas of support. Edward's campaigning in 2003 and 2004, as well as his early campaigning in 2007 may have paid off.

#4. Clinton is an establishment figure. I believe the people of Iowa are seeking a break from the establishment. They want a "change" candidate. Edwards and Obama are both stronger than Clinton when it comes to who represents change. Plus her support is moving down at the wrong time right time :)..., and her campaign has turned ugly in recent weeks. She had a few incidents that hurt her in Iowa.... her scolding of an Iowa voter who asked her a question was a bad move. Iowans don't like being lectured to from outsiders. They also probably didn't care for the planted questions from her staff.

#5. Edwards is polling strong against potential Republican opponents.

#6. Edwards may do better with independents in a general election... a crucial point that Iowans will be looking at. Independents are important for a Democratic victory.

#7. Edwards may be able to carry more purple States....or at least as many as Clinton could carry. Being able to carry purple States, like my home State of Missouri, will be crucial for Democrats. They have to flip (and are poised to flip) at least 3-4 States that they didn't flip in 2004. Democrats cannot afford to have another close election like 2000, and 2004. Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico (and a few others) could go to the Democrats. Edwards may be the best candidate to do it.

I'm just afraid that during the deliberations... the other establishment candidates will throw their support behind the chosen "establishment" front-runner, Hillary Clinton...in order to make sure power stays in the hands of the establishment camp. In other words, Richardson, Dodd, & Biden may encourage their supporters to go for Clinton. But if Edwards and Obama put their heads together.... they can team up to prevent this from happening or at least prevent Clinton from winning if this does happen. I hope Obama will be willing to swallow his pride and take one for the people.... and that goes for Edwards as well if Iowans choose Obama as the strongest candidate...although I don't really see that happening.

Here is a video from the Edwards camp that explains the process.

Additional Reading About the Caucus Process

Hear The Democratic Radio Debate From NPR

NPR hosted a great Democratic radio Debate earlier today.

Hear the entire debate here. This was one of the best debates so far.

Sparks flew on the subject of Iran, in light of the recent NIE Report on Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program.
Clinton supported the Bush Administration's effort to label part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, providing the Neo-Conservatives with all the approval they need to launch an attack against that Country. But Clinton bought into the Bush Administrations disinformation campaign on Iran far too easily, with little skepticism, just as she did when she voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. When you vote in favor of an ill advised war once, you may be able to get away with calling it a mistake. However, when you do it twice in a row, there is a thing called "judgement" that has to be called into question.

Watch The Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum

Watch the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum which took place over the weekend in Des Moines. The forum included grassroots organizations from across the spectrum. Participants got the chance to pose important questions to the candidates. The forum was open to both Republicans and Democrats... But not one Republican bothered to show up.

The event was moderated by TVOne's Cathy Hughes.

Read an overview of the event here and here.

Apparently Hillary Clinton was booed at the event. See Video.

See John Edwards's Segment



One of the best candidates was Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately he went last and was rushed through with the little time that remained.

Watch Entire Event courtesty of C-Span

(the c-span video may only be available for approximately 2 weeks after it was posted)

If the c-span video is not available, you can watch video of the event here. (be patient through the delay.... fast forward past the music if you can)