MSM vs John Edwards

McCamy Taylor Wed Jan-30-08 07:48 PM

The Press v. John Edwards Updated at 9:50 PM

One year ago, when CBS polled Americans to see where likely Democratic presidential candidates stood in the public eye, John Edwards came in a solid second to Hillary Clinton.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/jana-candid...

Thanks to her status as a former First Lady she had recognition similar to former Democratic candidates Gore and Kerry. Edwards was the most recognized Democrat who had never been a nominee. Obama’s recognition rates and favorability rates among Democrats and Independents were significantly lower than Edwards. Edwards’ unfavorability rating was better than Hillary’s, giving him a edge as a “uniter.”

How did the nation go from knowing who Edwards was to not even knowing that he was running for president ? Where did this idea that he was “phony” start? Why, in the last couple of weeks, did we start to hear that Edwards was some kind of communist anarchist?

It all started with the BFL, Big Fat Liars aka the corporate media.

Here is the excellent analysis (with piece charts and block graphs) that forced the mainstream media to admit what we all had seen----they had deliberately inflated their coverage of two of the candidates, Hillary and Obama, while deliberately shutting out Edwards, who actually ranked high in the polls.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12286/27650/142/...

They did this for a solid year. One example of the way that this bias permeated every aspect of election reporting: one night on Countdown the guest was E.J. Dionne. Poll numbers from Iowa were shown. The Dems were in a a dead heat. KO asked Dionne to comment. He launched into a discussion of Hillary and Obama and never said a word about Edwards, who was neck and neck with the other two. KO did not even notice.

They did this even after Edwards came in second in Iowa, giving the lie to the Two Man Race Lie . Instead of suddenly noticing the Edwards campaign, as people across the country started to notice it, the MSM responded with another impromptu lie, which I call Who's On Second? because the pundits would talk about Obama's win and Hillary's third place finish while giving the impression that the old joke candidate Nobody for President must have taken second place. Or worse, television political reporters on all the news networks would announce that the Edwards campaign was finished, that he would resign soon. This at a time when his campaign was hoping to win new supporters and raise much needed cash. This had the effect of negating any boost his campaign might have received from the Iowa win. The lies that were told at this moment probably did more to destroy the Edwards campaign than any others.

In this interview on Countdown Keith Olbermann asks John Edwards why the press at MSNBC said that his second place finish meant that Edwards was in trouble and not Hillary. Edwards replied bluntly that the media had been trying to frame it as a two person race between Hillary and Obama. To Olbermann's credit, after that interview, he began to feature Edwards more often on his show. However, by then the damage was done.

http://takeaction.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/john-edwards... /

When the report described in the DailyKos link above came out there was a backlash. The mainstream media had been caught attempting to "fix" the Democratic Primary. That was not good. They still had to "fix" the race between Hillary and Obama.In an effort to restore their tarnished honor, we finally saw the TV news networks and the major newspapers like the Washington Past and the New York Times devote some coverage to the Edwards campaign before the South Carolina primary. It was too little, too late. After a solid year of mainstream media attacks and blackouts, one week of coverage will not resurrect a presidential campaign.

I have been writing about the corporate media conspiracy against John Edwards for almost a year in hopes the we, voters and consumers of the news media could put a stop to it. Looks like the CEOs at GE/NBC, NewsCorp./Fox, AOL/Time-Warner, Viacom-CBS, Disney-ABC won and we lost.

Today, I am writing so that we will remember, and also so that the media lap dogs, the individual journalists---no, let’s call them what they are---the whores will not get away with doing their masters’ dirty work. I got the idea when I re read The Press v. Al Gore a couple of years ago and realized that with the exception of one sacrificial goat, Ceci Connelly of the Washington Post, the reporters who created the lie Gore is a Liar have all done very well for themselves.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_pres...

Google and see where journalists like Walter Shapiro, Richard Berke , Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, Bill Turque, Bob Woodward, Margaret Carlson have ended up. Hmmm. Some of them will feature in this journal. Guess they learned from Gore is a liar that there is good pay off and no accountability for telling lies about Democratic candidates.

I recognized that the media fix was in a year ago. On February 7, 2007 I wrote a DailyKos diary called From the Corporate Media that Brought You Gore is a Liar, Edwards is a Phony When I got six responses, I knew it was going to be an uphill battle convincing people of what was going on.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/1319/06023/495/2...

A year ago the MSM blackout had not started yet. A year ago, it seemed like Edwards was getting more attention than all the other Dems combined, only it was not nice attention. John Solomon of the Washington Post lead the way with a series of article about Edwards house, his money, his hair, his hairdresser !!!! . Right wing sites began a coordinated action that seemed to be aiming towards “Edwards is a phony” and sure enough that is the word that they managed to get to stick. Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malikan were among the right wingers who were singling him out for special attention. And the MSM was already showing selective hearing in that it would not cover Edwards policy statements but it would make mountains out of any wild rumor that might cause a rift within his camp or between his camp and traditional members of the Democratic base (Read my DailyKos entry. The details are all there.)

John Solomon’s reputation was already trashed before he took this assignment, and after he finished Edwards is a phony no one would ever believe anything he wrote again. Certainly, no one would ever talk to him again. I guess that is why he had to take a job at the right wing ghetto of the Washington Times . So, one of the media whores has paid—sort of, if you count getting kicked upstairs into an editorial job retribution. I would rather see him working at a Thrifty Nickel .

Here is la crème de la crème of Solomon’s important political “reporting”, the interview with the man who gave Edwards’ some haircuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

This story was printed in July, 2007, long after I and other people had begun to complain about the obvious partisan nature of the stories that Solomon was writing and the Washington Post was running about Edwards. I feel that it is necessary to add the editors and owners of the Washington Post to the list of participants in the inquisition against Edwards, because they are the ones who hired the notorious John Solomon to write this tabloid silliness disguised as political news. This story, with its implied subtext of the stalker hairdresser with his unrequited gay crush (getting on planes day or night to race halfway across the country to make his man look good) was probably the purple-est prose I have seen in years. It also plays up Ann Coulter’s infamous comment from last spring. Lord only knows what Joseph Torrenueva thought of the article. Now that the Edwards campaign is over, he should hire Edwards to help him sue the WaPo for libel.

If you think I am over reading the article, take a look at how the guys on TV spun it:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/over-tipping-by-...

Television gasbags have been gleefully recycling this Edwards nonsense all day, based upon the latest Soloman story and treating it like it's news. Matthews said "sometimes small stories can reveal big things." He pretends he's cleverly pointing out that Edwards is a phony populist for getting expensive haircuts but what he's really doing is pushing GOP propaganda that Edwards is effeminate and soft. Like all Democrats.

Fox's Major Garrett just did a huge piece on this "controversy" ending with this:
"The stylist said 'I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature and these are the things, as an expert, that's what we do.' For sheer irony, that Edwards seems to believe he needs all three, might be the sharpest cut of all."


Here is a link about George Stephanopoulos giving the un newsworthy WaPo story more coverage.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070607.shtml

“But even more than that, it seems a little callous to be sort of pushing off on the hairdresser. When the hairdresser comes back and says, “Wait a second, I was a friend of yours, I worked hard for you," it can't help. More—more haircut headlines are not good news for John Edwards.”


Neither is another television news pundit yakking about haircuts. What an ass.

Note that Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos are alumni from the Rolling Stone “Gore is a Liar” story, making them seasoned veteran media whores. Among Tweety’s many other Edward’s atrocities---after New Hampshire, when he wasn’t accusing the citizens of that state of being racists and E-vote hackers, he was accusing Edwards of being a spoiler who was costing Obama the race. This lie sounded so good to liberal commentator Lawrence O’Donnell that he destroyed his reputation by writing the unfortunate “John Edwards is a Loser” for the Huffington Post, proving that innocent liberals should never associate with former CREEP organizers like Pat Buchanan, who has been presiding over MSNBC the last few months like some kind of Ghost of Stolen Elections Past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/john-ed...


Thumbs up to Media Matters for catching another print journalist Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle participating in the Edwards is a phony lie. Bonus points to Media Matters for spotting the fact that Carla also helped out big time with Gore is a liar making this reporter one of those seasoned veteran media whores I was talking about.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706020001

Perhaps Marinucci was too modest to mention it, but that report by the Chronicle about Edwards' "hefty fees from university speeches" was written by ... Carla Marinucci. So we have a reporter who writes an article about a candidate, then two days later writes that "the pileup of headlines ... threatens to obliterate" the candidate's message -- without mentioning that she was responsible for one of those headlines that she uses as an example.


Oh my. Everyone, when you read anything by Carla Marinucci, remember to be skeptical for this may well be another John Solomon who hasn’t been tossed into the garbage heap of the Washington Times yet.

The same Media Matters piece mentions Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson and Dennis Miller as more vectors by which the newspaper’s Edwards is a phony lies began to get distributed to the public. Vectors is a polite, medical term for blood sucking insects that carry disease, like leeches or mosquitoes or ticks.

Here is article about Fox News’ John Gibson describing Edwards as a “phony” in August.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/08/big_story_takes_a_s...

I could fill an encyclopedia with Edwards is a phony lies of the rich and famous. However, there is more. As I noted above, the press did not stop at slandering and libeling Sen. Edwards. When they were not bad mouthing him, they were denying him the free publicity which they lavished on the other two senators. Here is another link about the blacklist.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/wa...

After all, the same WaPo reporters who chose to describe Edwards' speech as an effort to "elbow" his way into the Hillary-Obama rivalry also chose to devote the first eight paragraphs of their piece only to what Hillary and Obama said. They chose to wait until the ninth graf to tell us what Edwards said. This despite the fact that the reporters also acknowledge that polls show that in Iowa the race remains "a competitive three-way contest."

So if by WaPo's own admission this is a competitive contest between all three candidates, why go to such extreme editorial lengths to frame it as a two-person race that Edwards is trying to "elbow" his way into?

This might not have been worth bothering with if it didn't perfectly capture a lot about what's been wrong with so much of the reporting on Campaign 2008. What's bizarre is how blatant this has become -- in cases like this no one even bothers to conceal how unabashedly manufactured the chosen narrative of the moment is.



Obama was elevated to Sen. Clinton’s level almost immediately, creating the fiction of the Two Man Race . Democrats were offered the Pyrrhic choice----pick the first woman and snub Blacks or pick the first Black and alienate women. And, just in case the two candidates might do the sensible thing and decide to run together, the mainstream media decided to mix things up and interject race into the race. (See my recent journals about the MSM’s attempts to position the Democrats into a circular firing squad). Since this journal is devoted to Edwards, I will not cite references to that other campaign here.

With the New Year, things began to change. The public's concern turned towards the economy---Edwards’ special issue—and the MSM was now unable to deny him coverage completely as they have done before without getting caught. Therefore, in recent weeks, the corporate media began to unleash new lies against Edwards. One was specifically directed at Republicans and Independents, the Edwards is a red lie. This one was meant to keep his numbers down in polls which match Dems versus Republicans head to head. Ability to win in a general election had been one of Edwards’ strongest campaign points, so the MSM created this lie to undercut his strength. Check out this video link of CNN’s Glenn Beck calling Edwards a communist:

http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/glenn-bec... /

If the corporate media could paint Edwards as a “red”, far left of Hillary and Obama, an extremist who would strip Americans of their goods and reduce us all to Soviet era drudgery, then they could neutralize him as a general election contender.

A related lie is “Edwards is an anarchist”. This is where “Edwards is an angry white male” comes in. We have media whores like Wolf Blitzer to thank for this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/02/john-edwards-a... /

What do you say to their criticisms that you are just running over around the state screaming and hollering and making a lot of noise, but you’re not ready to really get things done to work to get things done?


And some of them are able to combine all the lies together, as in Edwards is an angry, lying, phony by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post writing this time for the National Review on-line

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDMxN2E1ZGYyOTYwZD...

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.


My! Such eloquence! This Krauthammer is a master of the anti-Democrat slur. Hmmm. I wonder if he has had practice. A quick Google will tell us the answer. (I really didn't know what he did back in 2000, but I started typing this as I was doing the on-line search because I had a pretty good hunch from the oiliness of the propaganda above. I have a nose for these things.)

Oh lookie! Here is what Mr. Krauthammer was up to in 2000.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

But someone else offended more grievously on last weekend’s Fox News Sunday. That was Charles Krauthammer, serving up a remarkable statement about Gore’s critique of the press. Gore had said that Fox, Rush and the Washington Times “are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/29/02). And Gore had said this: “Most of the media been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks—that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole.”
Snip

Krauthammer decided to crawl in the slime. Try to believe that he said it:
LIASSON: But I think that’s a real kind of cry of frustration from Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders have said the same thing.
KRAUTHAMMER: Crying for help, you know. (LAUGHTER) I’m a psychiatrist. I don’t usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there’s a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help.
What a slimy man Krauthammer turns out to be! Krauthammer—a former and now misbehaving shrink—thinks Gore’s remarks on the press are “loony.” What a slimy—and deeply dishonorable—man this Great Pundit turns out to be.


To paraphrase Krauthammer’s own words about Edwards: You must understand: This is not journalism for him. “This fight is deeply business to me. I’ve been engaged in it my whole (reporting) life.”

How did the Rolling Stone miss this guy? Be sure to note this name, Krauthammer (what a name!), so that you can take anything he writes about Democrats with a great big grain of salt. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post veteran of the Gore is a liar and Edwards is an angry-phony Big Lies.

I could go on and on with this, but I am just too damned fed up with what passes for journalism in this country. The only solution is to bust apart the telecommunications monopolies that have turned television news stations and newspapers into propaganda organs for major corporations. MSNBC no longer needs to get ratings (except for the vanity of a few celebrities). Not for money, anyway. Its job is now to change the way that America votes in order to benefit the corporate coffers of parent company GE. The same goes for ABC and Disney, CBS and Viacom and all the others.

What we need is the US equivalent of the BBC, a fully funded independent set of public television channels that program news, entertainment for children and adults and educational program. Every industrialized country in the world except the U.S. has one. Everyone would pay a tax and no political party would have any control over it. We also need legislation to keep newspapers free of the influence of big money---like the $60million the US Chambers of Commerce have pledged to spend to defeat candidates who endorse “populists” issues this year.

In order to do this, we need to get rid of this industry pandering Republican FCC which allows unlimited telecom media mergers and expansions. We need to investigate and prosecute the current chairman for taking over Congress’s role in writing legislation that affects the media.

And most important of all, we need to protest and blacklist the individual media whores who do the dirty work for their corporate masters. I can not possibly keep track of or list all the individual players who have contributed to the lies Edwards is a phony , Two Man Race Edwards is a spoiler Edwards is a red . If you know of any specific “journalist” and can post a quote and link, please do so. I would love to see a hundred replies, each with the name of a different journalist caught in the act.

It is important to hold the press accountable for their actions. Reporters think that they can get away with it by claiming that they are just getting swept away in the general narrative or are incompetent or just making a joke or "dumb asses". This is bullshit. I am a story teller. I know that it takes work to tell a story and make it believable. Big Lies do not spring out of nothing fully formed. A lot of effort goes into creating propaganda.

It will do not good simply to accuse the press of attacking the John Edwards 2008 Campaign. They know what they did. They are gloating over their victory, counting their reward in advance while they flex their muscles, awaiting further orders from their corporate masters. As Goebbels wrote, those who create propaganda are not in search of a higher truth. They want results.

Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall . That is a matter of practice, not of theory.We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses.


http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm

You can not shame them into stopping. So, the only way to fight this kind of opponent is to take away their ability to spread propaganda. That means revealing them to be liars in public, so that no one will talk to them to give them stories and no news consumer will believe them. Taking away the incentive of television news and newspapers to whore for big corporations also helps. And encouraging the public to become better consumers of the news by offering them alternative choices and by educating them to the signs of propaganda.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor

Poll on Democrats.Com

http://www.democrats.com/presidential-primary-poll-5

* 2008 President
* Democrats.com Polls

Which Democrat Do You Support for President?

Joe Biden_____1% (6 votes)

Hillary Clinton________19% (87 votes)

Chris Dodd____1% (4 votes)

John Edwards_________________________________40% (186 votes)

Mike Gravel__0% (2 votes)

Dennis Kucinich_________________25% (116 votes)

Barack Obama__________12% (55 votes)

Bill Richardson__2% (10 votes)

Total votes: 466

Latest poll results

EDWARDS CLIMBS AGAIN

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who won South Carolina during his failed 2004 presidential bid, has climbed steadily each day of the poll. He started at 15 percent and is now at 21 percent.

Edwards held a slight lead over Clinton among likely white voters at 36 percent to 33 percent. Obama had 18 percent.

"Edwards is in a battle for second place," Zogby said. "He's getting the lion's share of the undecideds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080125/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc_4;_ylt=AmvXL_jw7DXQ.B26168w6rAE1vAI

Please help John

John Edwards needs help to get this message out. Please make a donation today, lets change things together!

Wake up America!

This man deserves a listen...

Letter from Martin Luther King lll

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John R. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

John Edwards

Pass it on!...

From tonights debate

John Edwards knows whats wrong with this country and how we can lead in the fight to save our environment...

John Edwards the Statesman!

I have never been so proud to back a candidate as I am John Edwards...

Do we really want change?

I got this letter in my e-mail from John Edwards campaign. I couldn't have said it better so I'm going to just copy it here...


Dear Edwards supporter;

The choice in this election is simple. If we want a president who will lead America to the big, bold changes we need and change the conversation in America, Democrats should choose the candidate who has led the field in ideas and shaped the conversation in this race so far.

In this campaign, John Edwards has led on the issues -- the other candidates have merely followed.

But don't take it from me -- let me share with you some of the things people are saying about John.

As Paul Krugman writes today in The New York Times:

"On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party's policy agenda. He's done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures."
And as Christopher Hayes writes in The Nation:
"The fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power."
In this campaign, John Edwards has led the other candidates in standing up for progressive change.

As Ezra Klein writes in The American Prospect:
"Much more so than Obama, it was Edwards who forced a new style of politics, untethered by the fear and timidity of the 90s, adamant that liberalism was an electoral boon and economic justice a popular sentiment. Knowing they had to defend against his challenge, both Hillary and Obama edged closer to his appeal.

"It left the Democrats in a much stronger position overall, and forced them to argue for, and commit to, a much broader and more inspiring agenda than we otherwise might have seen."
In this campaign, the other candidates have followed John's lead in talking about the special interests -- but the special interests understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. That's why corporate lobbyists are united against John Edwards.

As Kevin Drawbaugh reports for Reuters:
"Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards. One business lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be a 'disaster' for his well-heeled industrialist clients.

'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."
Want to help John's field-leading campaign for change? Then please take a moment to forward these quotes on to your friends and family who live in the 48 states that have yet to cast a vote for the Democratic nominee. Tell them that you are standing with John Edwards -- and ask them to join you.

Here's the bottom line in this election. We need a president who has the vision to put forth bold, progressive solutions to the challenges facing America in the 21st century. John Edwards has shown he has that vision -- and he has led on it throughout this campaign.

Thanks for taking action.

--Jonathan Prince
Deputy Campaign Manager, John Edwards for President
January 14, 2008

Why would John want to be our President?

I'm sitting here at my computer, just having read a very disturbing assessment of my favorite Presidential candidates prospects for success and wondering why. He's come in second and third in the only two primary's held so far and all ready they are sending him to the scrap heap. The MSM is buying into the DLC contention that there are only two, viable, candidates left so it's virtually impossible (no pun intended) to find a story, not even a blurb, about the one true hope for the Democratic party, that is John Edwards.

I'm thinking about the abuse he has taken, not for his message, but for his expensive hair cut, how he got his money and what he's done with it. Who he has consulted with in his private practice and even his sexual orientation, have come into question. Having lost a son, and who's wife is dying of cancer, this man, and his family, have shown great strength and courage in this endeavor. They campaigned hard and this man has stayed on his message.

He's surly not doing it for the money.His family was set to live very comfortably, something Johns Parents didn't enjoy. John came from the same roots you and I did, hard working middle class. Unlike other candidates, with similar backgrounds, John hasn't forgotten where he came from and the hard working middle class that made it possible for him to achieve what he has. He has given and given up more than he will ever make, monetarily, as our President. He says he just wants to give back and I believe him!

Is it for fame? Don't make me laugh. The John and Elizabeth Edwards family, aside from both being successful lawyers, are the most Mom and Apple pie family I know of in this race. This brings up a question that really bothers me. John is the average white man in the race. Not only that but a dreaded trial lawyer to boot. Is this the reason Johns message is not being heard? If John were a woman or black would that make a difference?

John is a statesman. He has proven that time and again. Although his questions and answers have been pointed at times, he has stayed above the fray when it comes to negatives and only pointing out the obvious when necessary. He was gracious in accepting that his former running mate chose to endorse Senator Obama. He has not wilted or even slowed down. He and Elizabeth are in this to the end, you can believe that. Why? Because he wants to be our President.

Support America, donate to John Edwards

I want to copy this article in it's entirety . It says so much about why I so support John Edwards.

Most Improved Candidate?
Edwards Reconsidered

By NORMAN SOLOMON
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon01032008.html

There have been good reasons not to support John Edwards for president. For years, his foreign-policy outlook has been a hodgepodge of insights and dangerous conventional wisdom; his health-care prescriptions have not taken the leap to single payer; and all told, from a progressive standpoint, his positions have been inferior to those of Dennis Kucinich.

But Edwards was the most improved presidential candidate of 2007. He sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.

And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times a couple of days ago, he said: "The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader." Later in the interview, Edwards added: "I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year."

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

The main causes of John Edwards' biggest problems with the media establishment have been tied in with his firm stands for economic justice instead of corporate power.

Weeks ago, when the Gannett-chain-owned Des Moines Register opted to endorse Hillary Clinton this time around, the newspaper's editorial threw down the corporate gauntlet: "Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

Many in big media have soured on Edwards and his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric." As a result, we're now in the midst of a classic conflict between corporate media sensibilities and grassroots left-leaning populism.

On Wednesday, Edwards launched a TV ad in New Hampshire with him saying at a rally: "Corporate greed has infiltrated everything that's happening in this democracy. It's time for us to say, 'We're not going to let our children's future be stolen by these people.' I have never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC and I'm proud of that."

But, when it comes to policy positions, he's still no Dennis Kucinich. And that's why, as 2007 neared its end, I planned to vote for Kucinich when punching my primary ballot.

Reasons for a Kucinich vote remain. The caucuses and primaries are a time to make a clear statement about what we believe in -- and to signal a choice for the best available candidate. Ironically, history may show that the person who did the most to undermine such reasoning for a Dennis Kucinich vote at the start of 2008 was... Dennis Kucinich.

In a written statement released on Jan. 1, he said: "I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucuses locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary [15 percent] threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

This statement doesn't seem to respect the intelligence of those of us who have planned to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

It's hard to think of a single major issue -- including "the war," "health care" and "trade" -- for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama.

But the most disturbing part of Dennis' statement was this: "Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change." This doesn't seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an exercise in smoke-blowing.

I write these words unhappily. I was a strong advocate for Kucinich during the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Two weeks ago, I spoke at an event for his campaign in Northern California. I believe there is no one in Congress today with a more brilliant analysis of key problems facing humankind or a more solid progressive political program for how to overcome them.

As of the first of this year, Dennis has urged Iowa caucusers to do exactly what he spent the last year telling us not to do -- skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics.

The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his "singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade." But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he's willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.

Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there's too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.

If this man is not our candidate then we have settled for the Status Quo once again...

It's a long process I know

I've got mixed emotions about today. On the one hand John probably spent a quarter of the money Hillary did and still beat her, but on the other hand he wasn't funded well enough to come out on top. That upsets me very much.

I've listened to Johns message and I've seen him in action. I've studied his record, in congress and the private sector, this man is for real. He is everything I could ask for in a candidate. He is running this campaign the way I would want all campaigns run, but in doing so he is putting himself at risk of not being heard. That is a disgrace.

We have created an industry out of getting elected. Lights, Camera, Candidate we have more scripts than issues. Sound bites and sarcasm, get the dirt and put it on film. They twist your mind with a spectrum of scenarios from wolves at your door to mushroom clouds over our play grounds, it's no wonder people are turned off.

We know more about Britney's spending habits now days than John Edwards stand on getting us out of Iraq. We've become a tabloid, People magazine society but the sad thing is inquiring minds don't want to know what they should know. Johns the only candidate who's set a dead line of a year to get us out of Iraq. The other two candidates, sitting Senators I might add, have done nothing to get us out. Where is the media, where is the coverage?

Last but not least is Elizabeth Edwards. Her strength and will power in helping her husband in his campaign have inspired me and many others. I can imagine no finer First Lady. Where is the coverage of her? I see Bill out stumping for Hillary but no coverage of Elizabeth to speak of. Maybe if she were a little younger and red haired?

It is because I believe in John Edwards so much that I made a donation tonight, of what I could, to his campaign and I'm asking all who read this to do the same no matter how much it is. Use the Act Blue link here on my page or go to the John Edwards blog. No matter how you do it John deserves your support, please help.