Edwards Gaining Momentum In Polls...So Why Doesn't He Get

[renie408]

any press? What does the man have to do? Be Dannielynn's biological father? I read that he was gaining strong on Hillary and was ahead of Obama in some polls and even in the ones he was behind, it wasn't by much. So why does he get ignored by the media? All I ever hear when Dem candidates are mentioned are 'Hillary and Obama'...'Hillary and Obama'...'Hillary and Obama'...

Whassup?

[YDogg]

1. Perhaps the fact that he isn't in the Senate any more dilutes his visibility, ...

or something like that. Not that it has helped Dodd or Biden. Perhaps voters just don't see him as relevant anymore. I happen to like him, BTW.

[renie408]

3. No, the VOTERS are voting for him in polls. It's the PRESS that is ignoring him. n/t

[NormanYorkstein]

10. Edwards gets lots of press!

When his wife is sick he gets lots of press telling us how he should quit, and he gets lots of press about his new house and why he should quit.

As for his well thought out policies and all their specifics, BORING!

:eyes:

[renie408]

14. Exactly. If I hadn't started checking in here again

All I would hear about Edwards are the things you mentioned. I could watch CNN all day and the only names I would hear are 'Hillary and Obama".

And I don't think it is because he isn't a Senator any more.

[SteppingRazor]

6. I think your second sentence is the likely culprit.

A lot of voters think of him as "that guy who ran as VP in 2004" and nothing else. Hillarry, meanwhile is a much more well-known commodity, and Obama has the advantage of novelty.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I agree--it's the Senate thing. Nobody can look to see how he votes

on everything that comes thru, the way we watch the others. It's an instant forum for them. Richardson, though busy as gov, has the same problem. Congress is very high-visibility right now. If there was ever a chance for a Senator to win, this is it.

[1932]

32. How Obama and Clinton vote is hardly a part of the discussion re their candidacy

The media coverage they get has nothign to do with how they vote.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Maybe not, but they are a part of Congress, movin' and shakin'--

not to sound mean, but they have a "day job" that garners them some extra attention. It's tougher to be on the outside of that, even though Edwards has more time to campaign.

[1932]

36. Well, that not exactly the argument above. And, btw, I think HRC would be

famous whether she were in the senate or not right now. I think she gets 90% of the attention she gets simply because of who her husband is.

Obama is certainly well known because of the way he won the senate race.

[katsy]

2. I don't know.

But populists like Edwards and Dean seem to be public enemy #1 to corporatists (msm). JMO, not a statement of fact.

[renie408]

5. That's all I can think, too. n/t

[Skink]

4. His positions are a lot like Deans'.

But he has an eloquent speaking voice. The media is some what afraid.:scared:

[underpants]

8. Posts #2 and #4 sum it up

They don't want someone getting the villagers all riled up and looking for pitchforks and torches

[renie408]

9. LOL. n/t

[katsy]

16. Can't have us getting all uppity now, can we?

ROFL!

:thumbsup:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. "Give me some men who are stout hearted men and will fight for the right to be free...."

Very old movie with Jimmy Cagney I believe.

[Tejanocrat]

18. So, is Edwards or Obama (or someone else) the "Dean" of this election? Which candidate will best

stand up against corporate greed run amok like the Adelphia, Enron, Halliburton, Phar-Mor, Tyco, Worldcom, etc. scandal?

[w4rma]

24. Edwards, without any doubt. Edwards has detailed his positions.

Obama has, in general, avoided details.

[Tejanocrat]

28. Thanks.

[gaspee]

7. I think

the people behind the curtain (corporate America) are scared to death of Edwards. I like that he's not letting the lack of press stop him. he's out there meeting individuals and people are obviously liking what they're seeing.

I support him but I'd chose him as VP to Gore if I made the decisions.

[plgoldsmith]

13. You're right, it's the corporations

Edwards is the only economic populist in the bunch. He's running on policies, not personality. They'll ice him out as long as they possibly can. The press isn't good at the job WE think they should be doing, but they're downright ingenious when it comes to serving their true masters.

[ToeBot]

33. He's Corporate America's worst nightmare, I expect the shills in the Media...

to do everything they can to keep him out of the spotlight and off the radar. I know where my support is going.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Because HE is a Democratic candidate that can actually win

That is why they don't cover him.
But to be fair, they really aren't covering the Republican candidates either...because they can't win.
When there is a Republican candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning...it will be non-stop coverage of that candidate and THEN Edwards will start getting more press...only not the good kind.

[fooj]

15. Exactly. They are scared SPITLESS!

They know that if Edwards wins they are in deep shit. I believe that he won't cover for ANYONE!

[ronnykmarshall]

17. It's WAY too early.

Once the primaries actually start and Edwards starts racking up wins (which I believe he will), you'll see more press for him.

Right now all the attention is on Clinton and Obama. Which might be a good thing for Edwards.

I'm for Hillary, but I don't count out Edwards for a second. I think we've got a three candidate race right now.

[Dr Fate]

19. Anyone care to match the $25.00 donation I made to him today?

Call his N.C. home base number and tell them that boy who grew up in Vance County who called this morning and gave $25.00 sent you:

919-636-3131

[renie408]

20. LOL...Been there, done that!! n/t

[Dr Fate]

21. Great!!! Then I invite someone else on this thread to match your gift or mine. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

25. No takers ???? n/t

n/t

[Warpy]

22. Face it, corporate press will be hostile to Democrats

as long as they are allowed to be monopolies. Until and unless we get a leadership with the stones to break up the huge monopolies we have in this country in energy, banking, the press, and several other key industries, this is all we can expect: a press that will studiously ignore a Democratic candidate until he makes a minor mistake that can be blown all out of proportion.

See: "Dean Scream"

[BamaLefty]

23. White woman vs. Black man

Two minorities in the realm of politics.

This is nothing more than a dream come true for the media. They couldn't care less about the fact that John Edwards would be the best President.

[AshevilleGuy]

26. Wolf, Tucker and Tweety are obsessed with Obama.

If I had a dollar for every time they say his name I could pay my bills for the rest of the year! Now as to who or what is teling them to do this, gee, I can't imagine... :eyes:

They do it for Hillary too, but to a far lesser extent.

[Colobo]

30. And so are hundreds of thousands of Americans, me included.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Edwards gets plenty press....enough for his purpose at this time......

He doesn't want to be the "frontrunner" yet. The press is actually and has always covered Edwards just fine!


OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:
Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

[1932]

35. Two of the quotes in that article are of voters and none are reporters.

Since those candidates did well, does it not make sense that voters were saying good things about them before the election?

And what was that 100% and 96% of? If four out of 91 stories mention Edwards and they're all positive, what does that mean? And compare that to the kind of media Obama and Clinton are getting this year.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. I'd go for him.

My first choice is Gore or Clark, as I believe they are the only two people in the country truly qualified to run it, but since John Edwards grew up poor and is talking about New Deal principles applied to the now-dead middle class, I would go for it. Besides, he's a plaintiff's lawyer, and a damn good one. Someone has to hold a company's feet to the fire when they commit a serious tort.