If you have "no place to go," come here!

Aw, c'mon, Josh. No mention of Edwards at all?

Zero? Zip? Zilch? Nada?

Haven't you been reading your Greenwald?

There is no question that the media has paid far less attention to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee than the respective successes of their campaigns merit. To that list, though, I would add a third candidacy that has received far less media attention than it merits by all objective metrics (polls, stature and money): the John Edwards campaign.

It is very striking how little Edwards' substantive critique of our political system has penetrated into the national discourse. That's because the centerpiece of his campaign is a critique that is a full frontal assault on our political establishment. His argument is not merely that the political system needs reform, but that it is corrupt at its core -- "rigged" in favor of large corporate interests and their lobbyists, who literally write our laws and control the Congress. Anyone paying even casual attention to the extraordinary bipartisan effort on behalf of telecom immunity, and so many other issues driven almost exclusively by lobbyists, cannot reasonably dispute this critique.

Yet because that argument indicts the same Beltway culture of which our political journalists are an integral part, and further attacks the system's power brokers who are the friends, sources, and peers of those journalists, they instinctively react with confusion, scorn and hostility towards Edwards' campaign. They condescendingly dismiss it as manipulative populist swill, or cynically assume that it's just a ploy to distinguish himself by "moving left." In the eyes of our Beltawy press, the idea that our political system is "rigged" or corrupt must be anything other than true or sincerely held.

We expect better of you, Josh. We don't need more and better horserace coverage!

No votes yet


chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

EE told me directly ("terrectly" seems approp. slang here) that candidate media coverage and poll results are absoultely connected. if hillary or "omaba" are on the teevee, even in a 'negative' story, their numbers go up. if not, they go down. it's really that simple.

weep, because of what that means, for us and our 'democracy.' but understand- edwards' message is alive and well, and would elevate a pol should people ever hear it and have the opportunity to have their votes accurately counted. that's what i take from his campaign this time around. despite intense concentration of media phasers set to "ignore," edwards is doing as well as he is. that tells me a great deal.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Believe me, you don't want more coverage of Edwards.

You want America to know he was the biggest war cheerleader, co-sponsoring the bill to go to war with Iraq. Flip-Flop.
Here is the moron you think will stand up to Bush

January 23, 2004
Edwards | John Edwards in 2002: "Saddam Hussein . . . has weapons of mass destruction and . . . is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons"
Now that he has re-emerged as a serious candidate, it’s worth looking again at where John Edwards stood on the Iraq war when it came to a vote in the fall of 2002. At the time, Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this puts Edwards seriously at odds with a substantial and vocal faction of his party; I address the potential fallout from this more on my own blog. Here’s Edwards, in his own words:
1. September 12, 2002: Edwards gives a speech on why the “IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO,” coinciding with Bush’s speech to the UN:
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
What’s more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.
2. October 10, 2002: Edwards speaks as not only a supporter but a co-sponsor of the legislation authorizing the use of force in Iraq:
Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world’s commitments.
This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
[W]e must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.
Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility.

Submitted by lambert on

It's payment. Getting paid by volume for cutting and pasting... Well, it's nice work if you can get it.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

They go on and on about McCain's surge, but if they mention Edwards at all it's to say he's trying some risky strategy of appealing to those who feel like "victims." Tarring his support as well as the candidate. Sickening.