The media has push Kucinich to the side... NEXT:

[liberal N proud]

Now that the media has successfully pushed Dennis out of the race for the White House, they will now be able to concentrate on getting rid of John Edwards.
The media wants the Democratic race to be a two candidate race. They don't know how to deal with a third candidate and they will ignore one of the three.
With Barack being the first black man and Hillary being the first woman with a real chance at winning the nomination the media is going to focus on sensationalism over substance.

John Edwards is not sensational in the fact that he is a white male in a celebrity rich race. The media doesn't want a John Edwards, they have chosen to drive the race with Clinton and Obama. They are not worried about issues, they will create them as the move along. To date they have successfully created the issue of race and gender between the chosen candidates.

Their next mission is to eliminate John Edwards.


Do we have a say in any of this? No but many will play right into the hands of the media and perpetuate the propaganda they lay out there with the race and gender cards thus diverting us from the real issues in this ever so important election.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Denis needed to reassess his priorities

and he needed a reality check.

I think he did the right thing by dropping out; we need him in Congress.

Now he can focus on securing his Congressional seat which heavily contested:

Washington - Cleveland Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich's run for the White House has led a large field of contenders to run for his congressional seat.

Kucinich continues to seek congressional re-election, even as he continues his presidential bid. He will officially kick off his congressional campaign on Wednesday.

That didn't stop Cleveland City Councilman Joe Cimperman, North Olmsted Mayor Thomas O'Grady, anti-war activist and former teacher and journalist Rosemary Palmer and former U.N. worker Barbara Ferris - who lost to Kucinich in the 2006 Democratic primary - from filing paperwork by Friday's deadline to run against him in the March 4 Democratic primary.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1199525500285720.xml&coll=2

[cobalt1999]

2. Edwards seems to be getting lots of press lately though.

I agree the media was a little star-struck after Iowa and NH, but it's a good thing they didn't cover his rough showing in Nevada in detail.

I don't blame the media as much as the habits of the American public. It doesn't appear anyone has the attention span to read detailed and highly researched articles anymore, and everything has shifted to 50,000ft. USAToday type articles. It's expensive to produce the former, and if no one demands it or wants that product, it falls away.

The product the media produces is a sad reflection on the American IQ and attention span.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. Did you happen to catch this piece of Village wisdom?

from a hyper-cranky warmongering neocon wad of filth?

Who presumes to tell "authentic and principled left-liberals" what we should think, and QUOTES FEINGOLD TO DO IT?

If you haven't, you should. (Emphasis mine.)

Preview of coming crucifixions...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402799_pf.html

People can change their minds about something. But everything? The man served one term in the Senate. He left not a single substantial piece of legislation to his name, only an endless string of votes on trade, education, civil liberties, energy, bankruptcy and, of course, war that now he not only renounces but inveighs against.

Today he plays the avenging angel, engaged in an "epic struggle" against the great economic malefactors that "have literally," he assures us, "taken over the government." He is angry, embodying the familiar zeal of the convert, ready to immolate anyone who benightedly holds to any revelation other than the zealot's very latest.

Nothing new about a convert. Nothing new about a zealous convert. What is different about Edwards is his endlessly repeated claim that the raging populist of today is what he has always been. That this has been the "cause of my life," the very core of his being, ingrained in him on his father's knee or at the mill or wherever, depending on the anecdote he's telling. You must understand: This is not politics for him. "This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life."

Except for his years as senator, the only public office he's ever held. The audacity of the all-my-life trope is staggering. By his own endlessly self-confessed record, his current pose is a coat of paint newly acquired. His claim that it is an expression of his inner soul is a farce.

A cynical farce that is particularly galling to authentic and principled left-liberals. "The one {presidential candidate} that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told the Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war. . . . He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."

[AndyA]

4. The author of that piece is a neoconservative, Faux News contributor.

He is also a George W. Bush appointee, which pretty much precludes him from having any credibility whatsoever.

Like most who have enjoyed the good life under Bush's guidance, John Edwards in the White House is their worst nightmare.

Which is exactly why he's the only candidate who should be in the White House in 2009.

If people would open their minds, see what's going on, follow the money, and do a bit of soul searching, Edwards is the only logical choice. Plus, we must have someone who can beat the GOP candidate in the general, and Edwards is the only one in polls who continually beats all GOP adversaries.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Of course I know all that--point is, people in DC take him seriously.

In the Village, Edwards is loathed not just because he's anti-corporatist and likely to turn into a Teddy Roosevelt-style trust buster as President--but because he does things that are, don't you know, just not done--why, he's got this totally-out-of-context Russ Feingold comment to support the notion!

I seriously hope that many in the DC punditry enclaves are thrown on the streets soon. This nation can't take too much more of this horseshit.

[onenote]

6. One could argue that it was the electorate that pushed DK to the side

Just as the electorate pushed Biden, Richardson and Dodd to the side.

[LWolf]

7. One could argue that.

One could also then argue that, when the electorate pushes better candidates aside to promote lesser candidates, then the electorate, and not their chosen figureheads, are the authors of the corruption we are suffering from.

[onenote]

9. well, apparently the electorate didn't think Richardson, Biden, Dodd, or DK were "better" candidates

Maybe there is an objective test for what is a "better" or "worse" candidate, but I'm unaware of what it is....

[LWolf]

10. "better"

Here's some simple criteria:

1. Is not a member of the DLC, and/or does not promote a dlc/centrist/3rd way platform, regardless of dlc membership status.

2. Does not bear a closer resemblance to a moderate republican than a Democrat.

[Tarc]

8. You can't push someone out of a race that they were never in to begin with