Why the corporate media want to silence John Edwards...He is "dangerous"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

by Paul Street

==Why is the media’s scorn for the populist/progressive hypocrisy of top tier candidates – a hypocrisy that is written into the structural nature of the United States’ heavily media-focused and corporate-plutocratic “dollar democracy” – so disproportionately focused on Edwards? It’s simple. He’s not a full-blown populist progressive; no such individual could run a credible campaign under the current corporate-dominated U.S. electoral regime. But after the openly Left and officially unelectable Kucinich (who threw his Iowa caucus delegates to Edwards in 2004 and will probably do so again in 2008), Edwards is the closest thing to such a candidate in the Democratic primaries. Having attained his “wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations” (Cohen 2007), Edwards is deeply concerned (however hypocritical he might sound) about poverty and inequality. After heading a liberal poverty research center in Chapel Hill for the last three years, he announced his campaign in an impoverished section New Orleans – the nation’s leading symbol of concentrated and racialiized poverty and government neglect – and speaks insistently and repeatedly about and against the growing chasm between rich and poor within the United States. He has the most progressive and detailed health care proposal – the only truly universal plan – among the top-tier Democratic candidates. He advocates rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for people who receive more than $200,000 a year to fund truly universal coverage (6).



Edwards is the only top tier Democrat to back up Dennis Kucinich’s claim that single-payer government health insurance is good policy. His universal health care plan is to the left of the cheaper and milder copy-cat version proposed by Barack Obama in that it is more adequately funded (thanks to the proposed tax-cut rollback), truly universal and would compel private insurance companies to compete with government plans and could evolve into single payer. ==

==“Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties and talking about workers’ rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He’s the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he’s pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit. Given a national media elite that worships ‘free trade’ and disparages Democrats for catering to ‘extremists’ like MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media’s rather obsessive focus on Edwards’ alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us. Nor should it surprise us that we’ve been shown aerial pictures of Edwards’ mansion in North Carolina, but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates. You see, those other pols aren’t hypocrites: They don’t lecture about poverty” (Cohen 2007).



It’s not for nothing that Edwards is losing to Hillary-Obama in both the big donor dollar race and in the race for name recognition and favorable attention in dominant media. He’s speaking the languages of labor, the New Deal and the (stillborn) War on Poverty to a noteworthy extent in a time when the labor movement and the notion of positive government action for egalitarian and anti-poverty ends have been officially proclaimed dead and over (drowned in the icy individualist waters of neoliberal calculation) and in a period when the issues of inequality and economic insecurity resonate with a considerable and growing section of the ever more class-fractured citizenry.==

Read the rest at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

[Birthmark]

1. If Edwards isn't the Democratic Nominee...

...I probably won't vote in 2008. My wife has said the same thing. If my choices are between corporate a Republican and a corporate Democrat, "None of the Above" seems preferable.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Edwards may be this generation's last, best hope for real change

As the article noted, Edwards is essentially an electable Kucinich-lite. It is rare for a major figure to run on Edwards' bold, progressive platform of real change; it is even rarer that such a candidate is a threat to win. He is the biggest threat to the status quo in decades. A candidate who cares more about poverty reduction than deficit reduction? A candidate who has walked picket lines? A candidate who has a universal health care plan that has a backdoor single-payer provision in it? A candidate who is not a darling of Wall Street? A candidate who advocates an actual role (as opposed to those who rhetorically nod in this direction. The devil is in the details. Such individuals never provide anything concrete behind their election year rhetoric.) for government to expand the circle of opportunity? A candidate who dares to talk about "Two Americas" and rising inequality? A candidate who says we should be patriotic about something other than war? A candidate who says that instead of dropping bombs we need to drop buckets of hope and opportunity overseas, including to help reduce terrorism?

What a danger. He must be stopped at all costs.

[aquart]

3. No. Stop that right now.

Take a good look at the Supreme Court. ANY Democrat on our slate will appoint better people than Bush has, than the Republicans have.

A political hissy fit because your choice isn't the party's choice will condemn you, your family, your heirs, to horrors yet unknown and some damn well known.

Vote for Edwards in the primary. I am. My family is. That's what a primary is for: an expression of the voter's choice. If my choice is not the candidate, I WILL vote for the one who is. I don't expect perfect, and I do expect to dog whoever wins. But I will NOT destroy my country in a fit of pique.

[Birthmark]

8. Not buyin' it anymore, aquart.

Take a good look at the Supreme Court. ANY Democrat on our slate will appoint better people than Bush has, than the Republicans have.

Sorry, I'm not going to have my vote extorted from me on the basis of hypothetical USSC appointments. That worked for a while, but it's played out. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

A political hissy fit because your choice isn't the party's choice will condemn you, your family, your heirs, to horrors yet unknown and some damn well known.

I can't even begin to explain to you what all is wrong with that. For starters, relegating my decision to "a political hissy fit" is both presumptuous and insulting. It also happens to be factually wrong.

You also have a bit of a logical problem with your assertion, but I'll let that go.

If my choice is not the candidate, I WILL vote for the one who is.

And that is your right as an American. I accept that. Further, I accept that without impugning or belittling your motives. I just happen to disagree with you. How you choose to deal with that disagreement says a lot more about you than it does me, no offense.

[aquart]

15. I'm a Democrat. I will support the Democratic candidate.

Even if it's the one I like least.

And I admit to having only contempt for so-called Democrats who won't.

[Birthmark]

16. So your allegiance is to a party label...

...rather than ideals? It's your right, but I can't follow you there.

And you should probably work on that contempt thing. It ill serves you. Cuts into the quality of the Christmas presents you get. Trust me, I know.

[eallen]

6. The lessons of 2000 are so soon forgot....

Gore was the DLC successor to Clinton. There were lots of progressives who didn't vote for him. Some voted for Nader instead.

That worked out so damn well, don't you think?

BTW, I'm not a progressive. I prefer Obama's views to Edwards's. Do you think I should sit out the general election if Edwards is nominated?

:hippie:

[Birthmark]

9. That's up to you. eom

[geek tragedy]

7. Ralph Nader and Karl Rove love DINO's

who think like this.

[Birthmark]

10. They also love...

...the crop of Democrats they have now. So frightened. So compliant. So...corporate.

I don't make my political decisions based on what someone else likes. I make my decisions based upon what I like. And what I like is someone who isn't Republican-lite, and someone who doesn't spook because Republicans said something. I can get cowardice and compliance from almost anyone. But I won't vote for those people, you know? :D

[geek tragedy]

64. It sounds like you're a member of the "Edwards for America"

party rather than a Democrat.

[malikstein]

11. Most of the Democratic leadership could

fold into the Republican Party and nobody would notice the difference.

[Birthmark]

12. I can hardly separate them as it is. eom

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Then, just keep voting for Republicans, if there's no difference.

:eyes: MKJ

[cascadiance]

26. I think Gore this time around would also be a good option...

Who I will vote for if he enters the race. Otherwise I'll support Edwards. If neither win, I might even wind up moving to Canada then! :(

[natrat]

4. notice they try to lower him with Edwards vs. coulter segments

for that matter they try to cheapen and trivialize the idea of responsible government by giving air time to horrible people like her

[waiting for hope]

5. He is the candidate for change -

With him as President - preferably for two terms, the prospect of what he can accomplish and set in motion is my dream, and my dream for my children. I want my children to have a future that is bright and full of promise. What Edwards brings to the table is breath taking, a vision of hope that all Americans have have the same opportunities and the ability to make a difference in the world.

Thanks mario! This made my morning :)

:kick: and :thumbsup: !

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. I agree completely, good post

:hi:

Edwards can help us build One America. :bounce:

[polichick]

13. Sad that he's looking so sapped these days...

Don't know if he'll last (this seems very hard on the whole family) ~ but I really hope he'll be a change president if he makes it. Maintaining the status quo is the kiss of death for America!

I will say that his lifestyle doesn't look like that of a change candidate, so I've never known if he's sincere or just jockeying for a position that plays.

[info being]

21. I never thought he was very sincere either

I wanna believe these things about him, but I just don't.

[polichick]

36. Yeah, it's kinda hard to take his positions seriously...

...when his 28,200 square foot house is so like the dream homes of the corporate heads he repudiates. Ironically, the desire for such ostentatious material wealth is one of the things behind corporate corruption.

I would be more impressed if he'd used his money to purchase a large piece of threatened wilderness, or to restore a city neighborhood and provide housing for the poor.

<http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848>

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. The article addresses this meme: If you are rich and care about the poor you are hypocrite

If you are rich and do not even bother to mention the 37 million Americans in poverty, that is fine and better. Something is wrong with that picture...One DU'er made a good point that what the CMSM is doing is sending a warning flare to any future presidential candidates (since, obviously, they all will be rich): do not dare talk about the poor. If you do we will paint you as a hypocrite. Shut up, give token lip service to the poor in election years but do not dare to advocate real change.

==As Jeff Cohen notes:


“Edwards is alone in convincingly criticizing corporate-drafted trade treaties and talking about workers’ rights and the poor and higher taxes on the rich. He’s the candidate who set up a university research center on poverty. Of the front-runners in presidential polls, he’s pushing the hardest to withdraw from Iraq, and pushing the hardest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to follow suit. Given a national media elite that worships ‘free trade’ and disparages Democrats for catering to ‘extremists’ like MoveOn.org on Iraq withdrawal, the media’s rather obsessive focus on Edwards’ alleged hypocrisy should not surprise us. Nor should it surprise us that we’ve been shown aerial pictures of Edwards’ mansion in North Carolina, but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates. You see, those other pols aren’t hypocrites: They don’t lecture about poverty”(Cohen 2007).==

[polichick]

41. Well, that's not what I'm saying...

It's fine to be wealthy ~ I'd love to be swimming in millions! But what a person chooses to do with his or her money speaks volumes. I'm not saying Edwards shouldn't care about the poor because he has money or that he shouldn't be rich in the first place, just that he'd be more credible if he used his money differently.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Edwards gave $350,000 in charity last year

Another Democratic millionaire candidate with a legal education gave far less than the national average (he gave 0.4% while the average is 2.2% of his income) for years until two years ago (last year he gave $77,000). Yet it is Edwards who is tarred and feathered for being a hypocrite? Why? The article addresses this. This other candidate does not talk about poverty or doing anything about it (aside from token election year rhetoric about being "our brother and sister's keepers", etc. He doesn't propose anything concrete about poverty.) so that is fine--especially with the forces of the status quo.

[polichick]

52. I'm not jumping on the "hypocrite" bandwagon...

Just saying that Edwards' lifestyle keeps me from wholeheartedly swallowing his story. Let's face it, twenty poor families could live in his house happily ~ it's just like the enormous spreads of those greedy "status quo" CEOs he rails against.

(Articles are great for info gathering, but in the end we have to think for ourselves. I've heard Edwards speak many times, I've seen his house. My response: :wtf:)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. You are if you are singling him out

So who are you supporting? All the candidates are rich. They, aside from Kucinich and Edwards, just don't bother to talk about 37 million people in poverty who can't give them campaign contributions and rarely vote.

[polichick]

54. oops, our posts crossed...

Just added to my last one.

I'm working on a GOTV campaign for progressives, but not supporting anyone in particular at this point. I call it like I see it ~ sometimes I like what I see, sometimes I don't. Kucinich is probably the closest to my way of thinking, but I admire all of them for different things.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. Sure. That is great but why are you singling Edwards out?

It seems you are singling Edwards out only because he gives a damn about the poor. Why not the millionaire candidate that I mentioned who does not practice what he preaches? What about the Clintons, who made $10 million last year? What about the others? They all have incomes in the six figures. Even Kucinich makes over $165,000 a year.

Edwards gave $350,000 in charity last year. Thanks to him, dozens of children who otherwise could not afford it got to go to college because of his College for Everyone program. He has walked the walk on poverty.

[polichick]

56. I "single out" the others on threads about them...

I've jumped on Obama for his meetings with Powell and his ridiculous statement about impeachment; on Hillary for her political stance on the war and DLC antics (especially in relation to the treatment of Howard Dean); on Richardson for his refusal to allow a recount in NM; etc, etc. But I also point out the many things I appreciate about each of them ~ as I said, just call it like I see it on each issue (or thread, as they case may be).

If Edwards is going to make corporate greed a central part of his campaign, he should expect a few raised eyebrows when people stumble across a photo of his home. Since the desire for such material wealth is a driving force behind corporate greed, seems to me WTF is an appropriate response.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. What about their stance on poverty and their wealth?

==If Edwards is going to make corporate greed a central part of his campaign, he should expect a few raised eyebrows when people stumble across a photo of his home.==

They don't "stumble" across it. They are force fed it by the CMSM because it suits their agenda. Why don't you ever see photos of Obama's $1.9 million house, the house the $10-11 million a year Clintons live, the house Rudy "$200,000 for a speech" Ghouliani lives in, or the home where Romney, worth at least $250 million, lives in? You don't see it because they do not bother to even talk about poverty.

Should Edwards take a vow of poverty? FDR, LBJ, and RFK were rich. They seemed to do a thing or to for the poor. ;)

[polichick]

61. As far as I can tell...

Poverty isn't a central part of the others' campaigns. They all focus on their favorite issues ~ mine would be the environment, and if I didn't recycle I would expect people to call me out.

I already said it's fine to be wealthy ~ but how people live and how they spend their money says something. If 28,200 square feet doesn't remind you of corporate greed, so be it. It's a red flag for me.

I've seen many pics of Clinton's house ~ barely a cottage compared with Edwards'. I really don't think more people are out to get Edwards than the other frontrunners. What I see here at DU reminds me of those parents whose children can do no wrong ~ why not embrace all the candidates as "ours" and in the end choose the one who is most likely to beat the Rep?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. Not giving a damn about people who don't vote and don't give $$$ is a virtue?

So you think Edwards should take a vow of poverty? FDR, LBJ, and RFK did not.

[polichick]

63. How ridiculous...

Obviously, you're invested in a certain spin ~ my posts are clear, no need to reiterate.

[The Count]

17. Oh, so dangerous, he didn't see a war he didn't want to start...Dream on.

And, of course, good riddance.
His campaign had all the MSM attention lavished on him - in 2004 and now.
It's people who got smarter. Some of his voters in 2004 want to know what happened to their vote - a bit of acknowledgment of the theft would be nice.

[w4rma]

18. Obama and Hillary funded it year after year and tacitly funded it again in 2007. (nt)

[LBJDemocrat]

20. Right. And think about it.,

Those who who favor interventionism will not be averse to backing someone who opposed the Iraq War because such a person would be a more credible advocate of future interventions.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. The obsession with the IWR is causing many progressives to leap into the arms of the corporate agend

How? Many people automatically write-off anyone who voted or supported the IWR (Edwards, HRC, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson). The answer for corporate America? Find an appealing status quo corporate candidate who opposed the IWR to serve as a "safe" magnet for all these people...you can usually find such people raising a lot of money in places like Wall Street...

[maximusveritas]

23. So did just about every other anti-war Democrat

It was the responsible thing to do. Once the troops were on the ground, they had to fund them and give the Iraqis a chance to recover from our mistake. Eventually, however, it became clear that they weren't making progress and Bush had no plan to change course, so voting against funding was something they had to do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Not Kucinich. Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate

If Kucinich could do it others, particularly those who like to advertise their alleged "courage", could have done the same.

==Eventually, however, it became clear that they weren't making progress and Bush had no plan to change course, so voting against funding was something they had to do==

Is that why they were silent for weeks after the veto and quietly voting at the last minute instead of taking a stand on the issues like Edwards, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, and even Biden (for the bill, but at least he was honest and open about it) did? They voted against it because they could no longer withstand the pressure from the progressive base of the party, which they need to win the nomination. Their hearts clearly were not against the bill. They are vocal in support of things like the coal industry but cannot make a statement on not capitulating to Bush over a period of weeks?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Exactly

The IWR is a clever tool the corporate forces are using to funnel us into a "safe" Pepsi (D-Wall Street) versus Coke (D-Wall Street) competition. While some worship at the altar of the IWR, the status quo is maintained under either scenario.

[venable]

25. warped view of the msm coverage, if that's what you think

or more likely a warped view of Edwards, alone with dennis as the progressives in the campaign.



but snipe all you want.

[LBJDemocrat]

19. New Deal-style, pro-labor reforms

I don't get it why so many people ignore this about Edwards: That a vote for Edwards is a vote to turn back the clock on the Reagan/Gingrich revolutions.

For once, there's a viable candidate who's representing this faction of the party; and what do we do? Spit on him in favor of media-driven, globalist rock stars.

Not even Howard Dean was as progressive as Edwards is now.

[ChiciB1]

24. I'm Sticking With Him For Other Reasons... But One Of The Biggest Is

the fact that he seems to understand that those less fortunate have and IMO will do better if we can resurrect Unions. I know personally that without my husband being part of a union we would really be in a much worse position financially. And I must say I'm a little more than surprised at how so many have turned against him, but then I suppose that I recall what it was like BEFORE REAGAN and so much that has been foisted upon this Nation!

I see it in my own family who sometimes get so much more involved with the distraction of American Idol and Paris Hilton!! Why they ask me MY opinion about this stuff still makes my head spin because to me these kinds of issues make me want to BARF!!

Is it because things have gotten so bad that most simply don't want to "look" for fear of having to admit that Amerika is getting sold to the highest bidder?? I don't have any real answers, but I do know I'm almost at the end of my rope!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. I agree

Edwards understands that the only way working people can have a chance to fight for decent wages, decent benefits, and decent pensions against powerful employers is if they marshal their collective strength in unions. O

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Exactly!!!!!!!

If I could recommend a post I would recommend that! :toast:

Edwards can return us to the days of the New Deal and Great Society. He can return us to the pre-Reagan era when government was viewed as a force for good in society, not scorned. Government is the only force that can help level the playing field in society. That is why repukes have successfully disparaged government--particularly any use of government to help lift people up--for decades. We have a chance to reverse the damage Reagan, and then Gingrich did. We can no longer settle for small, incremental Third Way half measures. We can once again think big, boldly like we did from 1932 to the 1960's. Edwards is the vehicle for that change.

Voters have three choices this year: 1) Republican rule 2) Third Way 90's-style governance 3) Progressive governance in the tradition of FDR and the Great Society.

[venable]

22. K&R I truly believe that Edwards scares the power elite in the democratic party

and he scares the republicans, as the strongest dem nominee against any republican.

[bearfan454]

30. You are 100 percent correct

He scares the shit out of these corporate bought and paid for lackeys.

[OHdem10]

27. The Elites ,including the Media accept the Caste System

as it is. A system which has a ruling class at the top
who gain the bounty and fruits of Capitalism and the rest
can catch as catch can. A person such as Edwards upsets
the comfortable place..This is how they see him. God forbid--shut this man up we might have to pay more taxes. We do not believe the
more productive in society(Rich) should be stymied by the
"less" productive. For many of these people--freedom
means the ablity to make their own money and they have
no responsiblity to anyone else. This is why they want
small government--few taxes.


I would not have a problem with these
corporate attitudes if:

They were forced to pay a Living Wage.
Look at what it took to get an increase in Minimum Wage(Change the
House of Representatives)

Working Class taxes are used to subsidize Corporate Welfare.
For it to have meaning-a subsidy has to be in the millions
sometimes Billions. Robinhood in Reverse.
A few pennies to the poor and working class will cause
the end of the world.

Edwards is saying to the Pampered Classes You made your
millions and billions on the backs of these people--with
as skimpy befefits as possible. None in most cases. We
are not going to throw them overboard. Selfishness
does not take kindly to such an idea.

Since the Reagan Administration--they have been working
overtime to destroy the idea of a common good.


They are happy with a two tier society. Some in our
party buy this.


Edwards is doing a good thing. At least hopefully some
people may think What kind of America do we want.??

[KillCapitalism]

28. Nice post.

We really do have a caste system in America and Edwards knows it and wants to change it. That's the big reason I support him and Kucinich. Those two men could help make ONE America.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. I have a feeling Kucinich may be in an Edwards administration

They like each other, have similar views. I would not be surprised if Edwards offered him a position in his administration if he won, although I am not sure whether Kucinich would want to leave the House for a cabinet position.

[bearfan454]

31. Damn straight !!! nt

[The Count]

35. How is Edwards upset the system? Did he say the 2004 election was stolen????

Did I miss that event? ...I didn't think so...It's all smoke and mirrors.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Read the article in the OP nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. Exactly

There really are Two Americas. Edwards is willing to say it and work for change. That scares the corporations and others who benefit from the status quo.

[MasonJar]

29. I am amazed that this is DU, "democratic" underground! In the first place

a lot of the anti-Clinton nonsense is generated by years of right-wing propaganda. She is definitely to the left of Bill. I remember how she was villified by the Rush cadre for saying that Palestinians should have their own country. She is not a Pug...they despise her. Obama is so charismatic and has wonderful youthful exuberance. Edwards is a person who has credentials for some truly important middle class revival. These are only three...most our candidates beat the unfeeling "ride your dog on the top of the car for 12 hours" Romney and the NYC ex- mayor, who is hopefully going to be derailed by the NYC firefighters, whom he screwed, and the McCain who kissed up to the Axis of Evil in the WH and the unannounced jowl-hanging actor, who is trying to keep the lying Libby from serving his sentence, a sentence imposed by a jury of his peers.
Personally I am a Gore gal all the way, but there are no losers running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. There is no "lesser of the two evils" candidate running for the Democrats. It is the way "democracy" works. One goes to bat for his/her candidate and then goes into the booth and votes and (unless Rove gets his hand in it) the candidate with the most votes by his/her fellow democrats wins and then we DEMOCRATS get behind the person that the majority of us voted for and help that person defeat the GOPer.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

32. Edwards is an electable (and a bit milder) version of Kucinich

We should all be supporting him. Instead, we go with the "rock stars." We could be giving a mandate for a counterrevolution to the Reagan revolution, but instead we continue in our neoliberal IDIOTIC direction. After all, Obama and Clinton are "rock stars."

:banghead:

[The Count]

33. DK opposed the war, Edwards sponsored the damn bill. "Electable" is a MSM made

concept. Yeah, the same MSM which allegedly persecuted poor Edwards, convinced many that he is more "electable" than DK...

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

34. I love Kucinich and I acknowledge this

However, Kucinich DID tell his supporters to caucus in Iowa for Edwards in 2004. That counts for something.

[The Count]

37. That's DK's sell-out and the reason I respect Gravel more.

It doesn't elevate Edwards, it lowers DK.
Edwards was in the Intelligence Committee, he knew the WMD stories were BS, yet he SPONSORED the damn thing. You can't get any lower than that - he surpassed Joementum on that one!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. The IWR has nothing to do with the OP

Aside from his talk of actually having a responsibility to help extend opportunity and hope overseas (as opposed to just using military force or coercive diplomacy to achieve aims), the main threat he poses is in the domestic realm. Read the article in the OP. It spells it out well. You may not agree with the article but it makes a strong case for the threat he poses to the domestic status quo.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

57. The IWR vote is in the past. what matters is seeing real change in our lives and in our country

I think Edwards is the only one of the top-tier candidates who will have a mandate to change our country for the better. Is he rich? Yeah. Is he mealy-mouthed and calculating? Probably.

But he will also be running on a platform that will give him a mandate to enact a far-reaching blue agenda and re-take control of our country and its treasonous financial empires.

Obama and Clinton, no doubt, have appealing personalities and have that edgy rock star quality to them; but at the end of the day, it's about doing something and not just smiling for the cameras and acting cool (while at the same time being in bed with the yuppie controllers).

[The Count]

68. UH, SO THE IWR has NO IMPACT on our future then....good to know it

Not in the ongoing war, not in the preemption language that enables Bushco to attack Iran...Let the bullshit flow about "real change" as we ignore the chaos your candidate produced....Lipstick on this pig much?

[The Count]

69. It has everything to do with it. MSM wants a candidate who takes the war off

the table - just like they pushed for Kerry and Edwards in 2004 for the same reason.
Edwards can make like the anti-war for gullible DU-ers, but on a debate when he'll be asked about sponsoring IWR, the war is no longer a difference between GOP and Dems. Just as planned. My point being that edwards is actually extremely safe for the MSM - always was.

[depakid]

44. It'd be nice if Edwards stops giving them ammunition

The corporate media whores are about as popular as undertakers these days...

[maximusveritas]

58. So ridiculous

I stopped reading at "United States’ heavily media-focused and corporate-plutocratic “dollar democracy”"
Edwards is only dangerous because he would ensure a Democratic defeat in 2008.

[PurityOfEssence]

59. Great article! I DARE Obama and Clinton supporters to read this

How can anyone support either of them after seeing this? The only two reasons I can think of would be that the person is either a corporatist who doesn't really give a rat's ass about the weak and disenfranchised or the person is such a blockheaded supporter that he/she can't accept being WRONG and change course. This last issue is huge on this board, and it's a common human failing: people identify with a "team" and their fragile egos can't ever admit a mistake.

Besides all the arguments about why he would be a better champion for the people (that's ALL the people, mind you) he's clearly got BY FAR the best chance in the general election.

Yes, it'd be great to have a woman or a black president, and it's long overdue, but that's no reason to go blindly forward with candidates who have big negatives and dubious cross-over appeal, and it's certainly no reason to back people who are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. The usual suspects are missing from this thread

Those who love to attack Edwards are conspicuously silent...

[The Count]

70. Ummm...Obama opposed war? If you think this article is the ultimate conversion

weapon, you have in mind some very naive targets.
Your candidate is responsible for a lot of the present messes today - having voted against everything he professes today (or having failed to vote for it - such as the federal abortion ban).

[PurityOfEssence]

73. Yeah, right. The tax cuts, hammering Ashcroft, writing the sunset clause in the Patriot Act

His voting record was quite liberal. The IWR was a mistake and he admits it.

Nobody fought harder against Ashcroft's confirmation than he did, and he was out in front on this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. Good post nt

[The Count]

76. Words vs deeds. I was there during Ashcroft's confirmations, watching hearings

making phone calls to all senators. Sorry - but I missed this newly invented "hard fight" as well as the newly invented "sunset clause from the man who only bragged about writing the Patriot Acy - and certainly voted for it. Thanks for nothing.

[churchofreality]

66. The only danger is if he is the nominee

He'd get trounced.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

67. The evidence shows he is the most electable

And he is the only one who flips red states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. ;)

[The Count]

71. "electable" - the ultimate MSM concoction for dunces. means "it's who we want you

to think of, at the expense of the undesirables"

[1932]

72. The MSM is doing everything it can to undermine the most electable Democrat

in case you haven't noticed.

[The Count]

75. Again "electable" is BS, as is your perception that your candidate is "persecuted"

by the same MSM that built him up from nothing, starting in 2003 with awarding him other candidate's victories.

[1932]

77. Perhaps you haven't seen the polling

He beats all Republicans consistently, yet the media treats him like he's second tier, while they build up Clinton and Obama.

Perhaps you have seen this either: http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2005/presidential-nomination.pdf

If the media wanted Edwards to win, they should have just informed the public about what he stood for, since, when these researchers did that, informed voters chose Edwards. (see page 27 and see the conclusions).

[The Count]

78. Only the MSM darlings get polled against republicans to begin with

I am sure ANY democrat beats ANY republican nowadays. yet, only the ones MSM wants us to consider get the polling (or at least get them published).
In 2003 - Clark was the only candidate beating Bush. After that, his results againsy Bush were never heard or seen before. Don't tell me about polls.