I do not understand why John Edwards isn't #1 or #2.

[mahina]

He is a smart, solid Democrat, likeable, strong, capable as hell, and he is telling hard truths that need to be said.

Why in heaven's name is'nt his message winning him the top spots?

I know and do not understate the media blackout, which I think has to be somehow actionable. I think it's disrgaceful that Kucinich wasn't allowed to participate in the debate. These two matters are related, as it seems the media now has taken the role of the people in deciding who is and who is not viable.

Anyway, Edwards supporters, know I am really saddened today to see John and Elizabeth's great sacrifices and enormous gifts left on the table by the voters.

Aloha.

[AndyA]

1. Thank you. I wish everyone could be as gracious as you.

I think the media blackout has hurt John more than we know.

The powers that be aren't going to give up their control so easily. And that should really scare the crap out of us all. It's pretty obvious why they don't want John in the White House, but who do they want, and why do they want them there?

[MH1]

6. I think you are right.

It's really a shame that the public at large is so dependent on the mass media for information, that they are easily manipulated.

Edwards has been putting out a good message and I think it has benefited the Democratic party to have him out there telling it.

[tblue37]

20. Because of the media blackout, many Edwards supporters are voting for their

second choice rather than for Edwards, because they have been convinced that if they dare to vote for Edwards they will be wasting their vote and preventing their second choice from having a chance.

[DJ13]

2. I do not understand why John Edwards isn't #1 or #2

He shouldnt have accepted the VP slot when Kerry offered it.

He would be doing better if some didnt equate him with that failed campaign.

Just my take.

[libbygurl]

7. I think he would've been a stronger candidate/campaigner than Kerry the non-fighter, as well. nt

[ursi]

3. it is sad ... and he came to us without corporate ties that have controlled DC

[davidwparker]

4. "the media blackout" - Why wasn't Kucinich in the last debate or the next

one?

Because when you take on the corporations that own the media, you get shut out.

It's simple.

[OzarkDem]

5. We're not going anywhere except to the Convention

good luck.

[patrice]

9. YYYYeeeeeeeeeee Hhhhhhhaaaaaaaahhhhh!!! OzarkDem!!!!

Delagates or Not, we're going to be there!

[OzarkDem]

47. We'll have plenty of delegates

and John Edwards will either win the nomination or have a very big say in who is chosen.

[patrice]

51. I'm going to apply to be a delegate, but if I don't make it, some other friends

and I (Peace movement types) are going anyway, to support Social Justice issues outside the convention hall.

[patrice]

8. Nothing really Important was ever easy. And changing an un-fair process is Important.

Edwards or Un-Committed ALL of the Way.

[jackson_dem]

10. The media blackout and $200 million behind Obama/Clinton

[RestoreGore]

11. He doesn't kiss corporate media ass

And he threatens their status quo, therefore he gets less coverage which in turn hurts his fundraising abilities unfortunately. Same as Kucinich and others who don't tow the line. It is quintessentially what SUCKS about the political system in this country. Candidates say they want CHANGE? Well I think they all flaming hypocrites if they say that and continue to genuflect to the corporate bosses who really run this show.

[Triana]

18. EXACTLY RIGHT RestoreGore - that's precisely the issue - 'we the people' no longer...

...choose our candidates or our presidents - the corprats do. Oh of course we continue to have the PRETENSE of "elections" - just to keep the voting public from really revolting - but they are a ruse, a sham - our candidates and leaders are already pre-chosen by megaconglomerate corporations and corporate-owned media.

Pffffffffft!

It's really pissing me off and I'm torn between getting behind whatever the "nominee" is just to get rid of bu$hit, or just WRITING IN John Edwards or UNCOMMITTED.

[liberalla]

12. What a kind and caring post.

"I am really saddened today to see John and Elizabeth's great sacrifices and enormous gifts left on the table by the voters."

What a beautiful, poignant sentiment. I appreciate your thoughts and your kindness.

And now, I have to keep hoping and believing...
I'm not giving up until John Edwards gives up!

[mahina]

15. Keep on fighting his fight,

and never give up hope, sister.

[JDPriestly]

13. It is the media blackout, but it is also the fact that

although a huge number of people like Edwards, they are passive about volunteering. Edwards' vision entails a lot of voter involvement. Too many people are willing to sit and blog at a computer but are not willing to get out and talk to voters.

You have to sign up and get involved. Don't be passive.

Corporatism thrives on passive sheepie voters.

I have never seen a Hillary volunteer tabling or walking my precinct, but I got a slick color brochure from Hillary today. That brochure catches the voter's eye, especially since Hillary is all over the TV -- along with Obama, and Edwards is being ignored. So, voters will get what they deserve. Personally, I think both Hillary and Obama are losers.

[screembloodymurder]

14. It's fixed, that's why.

John is our leading candidate.

[sandnsea]

16. People aren't angry anti-everything radicals

And that's how he's coming off which is exactly why Howard Dean didn't win.

People want a candidate to help them channel their anger, not just rant and rave about it.

[patrice]

19. Ohhh, they're going to become "anti-everything radicals" pretty soon alright, say ....

sometime between July '08 and Jan-Mar '09 when the Depression hits.

[sandnsea]

27. Yes, there does get to be that tipping point

We just aren't there now.

[patrice]

34. My big sister who does quite well in the market for herself and her

successful attorney husband (30% last year), says they won't be able to hold it off until after the election. Ravi Batra http://www.ravibatra.com/ says they will be able to hold it off until '09.

[sandnsea]

39. We have so many programs now

It would take a while for the affects of even a depression to sink in. I think that's one reason we don't get the radical changes in politics anymore. Republicans have figured out the least amount to provide to keep people pacified.

[patrice]

42. "Frogs in a pot of heating water."

Some Boomers are thinking about getting ready http://www.ncbcapitalimpact.org/default.aspx?id=146

[Two Americas]

93. not pacified

People are not pacified. They are terrorized and beaten down and intimidated.

I think that too many better off and comfortable people don't even see most of their fellow citizens.

I remember talking to a Green party member a few years ago. I said that the Green party was completely out of touch with the everyday people, and that they were all professional suburban people in the upper 10% in household income. He denied it and said that where he was located, in Silicon Valley, most of the people there were software engineers, so naturally the Green party membership reflected that demographic.

I said I was familiar with the area, and I could assure him that someone there was cutting the lawns, someone was scrubbing the toilets, someone was cleaning the offices, hauling the trash, fixing the roads, laying the tile, driving cab, working the counter, washing the dishes, delivering the mail, working as night watchmen and security, repairing the cars, driving the trucks, mopping the floors, washing the windows, caring for the elderly, working EMS, stocking the shelves, working the warehouse, working the loading dock, filling the orders, doing the building wiring, replacing roofs, fighting fires, cleaning the sewers, and doing hundreds of other essential and thankless tasks.

I strongly believe that many better off people go through their day looking right through most of the people they encounter and not including them when they think of "us."

[Two Americas]

oh, that's funny

That is how the right wing propagandists are framing Edwards and Dean. We don't have to promote that lie, do we?

[sandnsea]

30. They got the same amount of support

A lot of the same supporters. Edwards drew people to him by being hopeful and optimistic. This new Trippi version isn't going over. It's just a fact.

[Two Americas]

46. such covert hostility

Why else jump from subject to subject as you are doing? "Angry," then "Trippi," then "fact." I said it was a lie created by the right wing propagandists to characterize Dean or Edwards as angry, you respond that it is a "fact" that "this new Trippi version isn't going over." Your response doesn't follow logically from my statement.

Edwards message is not about "being hopeful and optimistic." Far from it. He says we are in the fight of our lives. "Hope" and "optimism" are the themes of other campaigns.

You may not agree with the reasons that people support Edwards, but at least have the respect to describe them accurately. Making up reasons why people support Edwards and then smashing those reasons down is what is called a "straw man argument." If you have a serious argument that you want us to consider, why would you resort to doing that?

When you say "this new Trippi version isn't going over" you imply some secret dishonest or harmful agenda. Describe your view about that honestly and forthrightly rather than using insinuation and implication.

What is it about Dean and Edwards, or that is associated with them ot their followers, that you are so hostile toward or in such opposition to?

[sandnsea]

59. I'm disgusted with Edwards

for going off on this angry man Howard Dean rant that was originally manufactured by Joe Trippi, just like Trippi always does. Edwards absolutely ran a hope and optimism campaign in 2003, I hope you aren't going to deny that. He did terrific with that. When he turned up as a completely different individual, from centrist to populist, from sunshine to ranting radical, the voters rejected him. I'm not insinuating anything, I've stated my view on it several times. There was never any point in beating it into the ground because once Edwards went on that path, his fate was sealed. I'm hostile because we need change in this country and in 2003 I thought Edwards might be someone who could talk economic sensibilities to rural voters and start turning the country around. He blew it and it makes me mad.

You don't hear Howard Dean making his outlandish statements anymore either, and he's doing a pretty good job at bringing more of country to him as we've seen with FL & MI and the party supporting Dean instead of the Clintons, for the most part.

[Two Americas]

69. all right

Not every knows the back story on this. Thanks for explaining yourself.

[AdHocSolver]

74. A wise person once said, "If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention." n/t

[sandnsea]

77. Oh I'm angry

I just don't think anarchy would be as enjoyable to live through as the people who rail for it think it would be.

[cornermouse]

81. When did standard democratic values become anarchy?

Oh yeah, right. They, along with unions and taxes, started becoming anarchy about the time Reagan took office.

[sandnsea]

82. I said the angry anti-everything ranting

is not appeaing to voters, and those who are always attaching themselves to that kind of campaign might not like the anarchy they always seem to be calling for.

I didn't say anything about the issues John Edwards is running on. I described the kind of angry man campaign that Joe Trippi always runs. I don't think John Edwards has changed at all. I just think his stump speech has changed, and it isn't helping him win.

[Two Americas]

92. I noticed that , too

And then we have "rail" and "ranting" - the exact same language that has been used for 40 years against us. I still can't get used to Democrats talking about other Democrats that way, though. I guess we are supposed to think that the only alternative to authoritarianism and tyranny would be "anarchy" with all of us stupid and naive people demanding a voice and power for the millions of have-nots. But as some anti-Edwards posters have said in the last few days - "the poor will always be with us. Some people are just smarter than others at making money" and "Democrats like to make a lot of money too!" and "people are making more money than ever!"

Then we have ther phrase "enjoyable to live through." I can't imagine thinking that anyone could think we are trying to decide what would be the most "enjoyable to live through." How many people in the country can take such a smug and self-satisfied stance? Very few, I think.

Let them eat cake!

[mahina]

38. oops, deleted

[Two Americas]

43. hi mahina

I was replying to sandnsea - thought I was anyway.

[mahina]

45. Hi TM,

I understand now.
Aloha.

[Two Americas]

48. oh, that's OK

Stick around and we can chat some more. :)

Nice OP.

[Quantess]

57. Who is saying that?

[Two Americas]

60. sorry?

Who is saying what?

[Quantess]

64. Oops. I responded to the wrong post.

Never mind.:)

[Two Americas]

79. amazing

Twice on one thread. :)

[Quantess]

83. Nope.

Show me the other time.:)

[AntiFascist]

25. Anti-everything???

Only if corporatism means everything to this campaign.

[AdHocSolver]

70. The corporate elite want a candidate to channel the public's anger away from them. n/t

[no name no slogan]

17. K&R #5

great post

[mahina]

32. Mahalo!

[robbedvoter]

21. delete

[SharonRB]

22. I absolutely agree with you.

I knew he'd come in third in Nevada today, but I really thought it would be a very close third. I think the media is doing him and the American people a huge disservice.

[stravu9]

23. Corporate Media FEAR HIM!

and have been told not to cover him because he is too attractive a candidate and they plan to continue to rule the country.

[shireen]

24. i'm pretty disappointed too.

Shout-out to the Edwards volunteers ... thanks for your heroic efforts. You did good. I'm glad people like you are out there.

[patrice]

35. We will Never go away. nt

[we can do it]

26. Mahalo, Mahina

I fully agree. JE has our best interests in mind, not the interests of big business. Peace to you, and hopefully to our party.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. I don't understand it either- but it is

very clear that something doesn't jibe-

I wish the media would report, and not opine.

This is far from over.

[Tulkas]

29. old news

He has been running for president for over five years straight now.

Without anything that resembles a real job he has lost the respect of alot of people who pay attention in non-election years.

Look at what Gore has done since his loss in 2000 !!!


Except for losing every contest he has been in, what has Edwards done in the last 8 years? (voting for the Iraq war doesn't count)

[dugggy]

31. He talks about 2 America's, Barack talks about uniting America

It is really very simple.

[patrice]

36. You scare me. "It" isn't very simple and anyone who thinks it is, is going to get

robbed.

[mahina]

37. I listened to Barack talk about this yesterday on a video

of a talk he gave to the senior class here last year. He spoke of the difference between the ideal and the real.

John Edwards is not the enemy.

[liberalla]

44. "the ideal versus the real"

in a nutshell!

[Two Americas]

55. uniting

You can't ask those suffering to "unite" with those perpetrating the injustices that are causing the suffering.

"Peace" that leaves serious power imbalances in place and allows injustice to go on is not peace, it is tyranny. Of course those in power want us to stop fighting. Of course those in power want us to "unite." Of course those in power want us to resign and surrender.

We have unity already. Almost all of us are sliding together down the long sickening slope toward tyranny and poverty. We are united in our suffering. Fighting to alleviate that suffering, uniting against the tyrants, that is the only true source of hope.

[dugggy]

63. Wrong!

According to US Treasury figures, Americans made record amount of money
in 2006. And the taxes collected in 2006 was also a new record. So not
ALL are getting poor. The rich are getting richer. And some in middle class
are moving into upper strata. The bottom is staying put. But don't they always?
There always will be some people smarter than others when it comes to making $$.

[Two Americas]

65. that is one view of the issue

I happen to be a Democrat, however, and I don't look at it that way.

[Two Americas]

66. note to self.....

%*%*#*&^#@#$!!!?????

[dugggy]

67. Democrats also like to get richer! No?

The democrats in senate for example are richer than the repug senators.

[Two Americas]

78. wow

Good God.

[AdHocSolver]

76. More people are dropping from middle class status into poverty than are moving up.

Having had the "opportunity" to observe an assortment of upper management types close up, I was dumbfounded at the low level of "average intelligence" and the general incompetency exhibited by these people. In trying to account for their status within the organizational hierarchy, I determined that they were raised to managerial positions because the executives above them saw them as less of a threat to their executive positions than the people who were actually competent.

If a manager does not really understand the work that she is supervising, she will not understand nor question upper management decisions that make no sense to someone who actually understands the job. The lower level managers who rise to the top levels of a corporation understand how dependent they are on their "mentors" above them. These are the managers who have no inherent skills to sell elsewhere, so they will do anything without question that THEIR bosses tell them in order to maintain their status and income level.

I have seen managers make serious blunders that cost the company serious money in extra costs or lost profits, and the result was that they were praised by the executives and given bonuses in order to cover up the mistakes to the outside world. I have also seen competent talented people "downsized" for no apparent reason. When a person is downsized, and even has good references from your former supervisors, it is difficult to upgrade your salary on the next job you get. In a high unemployment market, it is damn near impossible.

As for the government figures on how much money people make, they are as manipulated as the fraudulent unemployment statistics which the government publishes. The real unemployment is many times higher since many unemployed, and all underemployed, people are not counted at all.

[dugggy]

95. I was using IRS figures...Nobody overstates income to IRS

Not ever! Therefore the revenue collected by IRS in 2006 for the
US Treasury was a new record, and most likely the actual income
was higher because nobody, not even me inflate my income when
filing for taxes.

[AdHocSolver]

71. Barack wants to "unite" the foxes and the chickens--the foxes will EAT the chickens. n/t

[ileus]

33. Oh he is #2...no doubt about it.

[tritsofme]

40. I can, he comes off as a phony.

That's a big turn-off to a lot of people.

The whole son of a mill worker, learning about poverty by joining a hedge fund gag gets old quick.

[mahina]

41. Not to me, and my bullshit meter is in good working order.

[dugggy]

49. $400 haircuts and 20,000 SF house, gimme a break

He is certainly not living by example.

[mahina]

50. How's that working for Dennis Kucinich by the way?

This is America, if he has money and wants to spend it on whatever, so what? He didn't take poverty vows, although he certainly has given trememdously of his time, work, etc.

Sometimes people's expectations of our candidates really blows me away. We expect them to be some kind of idols.

[sojourner]

61. give that crap a rest..........to have made it to the top does not preclude caring about one's roots

unless one is a modern me first type who of course forgets at the first opportunity where he/she came from, also forgets how he/she got there. Edwards gives all due credit to his folks, as well he should. Good on him if he can get a haircut that costs 400. (Good on the stylist who gave it, too!)

[Two Americas]

53. "phony"

The right wing propagandists are trying to attach pejorative labels to each Democratic party candidate. They are smears, repeated over and over, that are designed to tear down the candidates. "Phony" is the one being applied to Edwards. It is a charge that cannot be refuted, of course. The message is that no one could be advocating for the poor unless it was "phony" and self-serving. It is the message, and the supporters of Edwards, and the Democratic party that are being attacked with this smear.

Any Democrat - all Democrats - should be slow to jump to these assumptions and use this kind of language against fellow Democrats.

No matter how much you may dislike a Democratic candidate, no matter how passionate you are about your favorite candidate, there is never any excuse for this, since it hurts all Democrats and does so little to help your candidate.

I would strongly urge you to consider putting your time and energy into expressing and advocating for your own candidate’s message rather than tearing other candidates down with smear attacks that were created and disseminated by our enemies. For the sake of your fellow Democrats, your brothers and sisters, for the sake of the party and for the sake of the country.

If you have a specific objection to the message of another candidate, or are opposition to the message of the candidate, you can respectfully express that, of course. But the character assassination and vague insinuations are highly destructive to all of us, and we should all forego the temptation to use them.

[dugggy]

68. This is primary season...it is ok to fight!

After the convention, we will all come together.

[AdHocSolver]

73. Your attacks on Edwards don't inspire me to support YOUR candidate. n/t

[Two Americas]

80. nonsense

You sound like you are reading a script.

[bobbolink]

52. I'm afraid it means we're saying Aloha Oi to the nation.

Really, I think this is the beginning to the swan song.

"You have a republic, if you can keep it."

:(

[InvisibleTouch]

54. The answer is very simple, IMO...

...and I don't think it involves a media conspiracy, dirty tricks behind the scenes, or any failing on his part as a candidate, at least in terms of his ideas, visions, or personality. Quite simply, he doesn't have the money to compete with the other two - and in this day and age, it's all about advertising. (I'm mainly a Kucinich supporter, so I know whereof I speak; he's got the exact same problem.) Given enough of a media blitz, you can sell the public on practically anything these days, for good or ill; it even worked for the Chimp, for a while!

Ironically, Edwards shot himself in the foot by standing on "principle" and refusing to accept corporate money. While it may have been the "right" thing to do in an abstract sense, it's costing him the nomination. I'd much rather have seen him use those funds to campaign and win, at which point he'd be in a position to make a difference for the better, than stand on principle and never have his chance. It's sad, because after DK, Edwards was my 2nd choice - and while I haven't written him off entirely, it doesn't look good for him. But he did it to himself.

[sojourner]

62. no...then he'd have shot himself in the foot as a "phony" who wants it both ways.

[dogman]

56. I don't understand how he ranks ahead of Gravel.

When Gravel was a Senator he did not have to apologize for his record.

[DemIdeals]

58. Because he's a flip flopper

He's still my #2 choice behind Obama though. i'd vastly prefer edwards to hillary.

[asdjrocky]

72. You really show some class here-

For some of us this is very personal, and we've worked very hard. Congratulations on your respectable finish, and on to SC.

[sandyd921]

75. There have only been 2 caucuses and one primary.

It's way too early to write him off and what I am seeing here and on the web generally is very disturbing!

[lostnfound]

84. My former-Bush loving Republican coworker wants to see Obama/Edwards.

I think that counts them both as 'electable'.
I am glad that Obama and Edwards have been mostly civil towards each other. Your thread is classy.

There's so much media spin and so many games in our modern world that it feels impossible to select a candidate. I second guess all choices and cannot make up my mind this time. Fortunately since I live in Texas it hardly matters what I think.

Two of my favorite middle-liberal friends like Obama best.
No matter which Democrat wins in November, I am going to be celebrating.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. Perhaps too many Democratic voters know about his Senate voting record,

which is markedly different than his campaign rhetoric.

[robcon]

86. It's not a vote against Edward's proposals or policies.

It's a vote, IMO, against his non-credible personality. We want someone in office we can trust. John just seems to have invented his current campaign policies in 2007 for the presidential run - in order to separate himself from the other candidates.

He appears to me to be a phony, and a lot of people see that, IMO.

He would be a good president, but his campaign is just a marketing device called differentiation from competitors.

[shayes51]

87. I am a Hillary supporter all the way, but

I don't know the answer to the question either. John Edwards is a great person and he has a powerful message.

[Vinca]

88. John Edwards made the logical assumption that if you work hard,

you'll get what you want. It doesn't always work out. He never ended the 2004 campaign and, as a result, peaked about a year too soon. It's too bad because he's a person who would change the status quo. I'm glad he's staying in. Should Obama drop out, Edwards is my second choice.

[cboy4]

89. I think you might have won the award for the classiest Obama

supporter.

[rucky]

90. $$$

eom

[stravu9]

94. In a Nut Shell $$$$ follow the $$$$

/

[Dob Bole]

91. TWO REASONS:

The primary reason is division of the Anybody-but-Clinton vote...if there had been one alternative to Clinton already, she probably would not have won a single primary. (Her husband never won a majority of the vote either when he ran for president, though.)

The second is his early acceptance of public financing, which made a lot of people see him as less of a viable candidate because of the fundraising limits.

Another factor is a bit of a bias against Southern candidates. It isn't huge, but Democrats see Bush as a Southern phenomenon (though he arguably isn't) and the last 3 Democratic presidents have been from the South. Many are ready for a change. Interestingly, the GOP has not been able to nominate a Southern candidate either.