Edwards coming up on CNN (8:19 P.M)

[Armstead]

Just had a teaser on CNN's Election show, saying Edwards is going to be interviewed live coming up.

[Armstead]

1. Kick

[polichick]

2. Wow, Olbermann AND CNN??

Maybe they're finally getting it!

[MadBadger]

3. Thought Edwards gets no coverage?

[Armstead]

4. He doesn't

[OneGrassRoot]

6. Seems his debate performances and audience response...

have suddenly made him "relevant."

:)

[jackson_dem]

7. Yup

[Diamonique]

10. He never got ANY coverage before we started complaining about it.

Then it started to pick up. But after his great debate performance the other night, his coverage is increasing noticeably.

[jackson_dem]

8. Statistically he gets less than one fifth the coverage of the celebrity candidates

[jenmito]

13. Hillary's a "celebrity candidate" because of who her husband is. Obama's one because he earned it

on his own. Edwards would be a "celebrity candidate" if HE inspired so many people, too. :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

14. Edwards "inspired" as many people in the polls as Obama before the media annointed him and Hill

Name the last senator who got as much hype, as much positive coverage from the beginning as Obama did.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. ...

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

18. No he didn't. He changed his persona into the angry candidate and it didn't work.

His choice. Obama was roasted by the media for his "rookie mistakes" and "inexperience" over and over.

[jackson_dem]

22. Why was he tied with Obama in the polls before the media annointed Obama?

Compare the coverage of Edwards' announcement of his candidacy to Obama's. This is the very beginning of each campaign. Edwards barely got a mention while Obama was hailed as the Second Coming and got live coverage, I believe, on CNN. Why? We know the answer: $100 million strong for Barack!

A study looked at the data and Obama got by far the best coverage of any candidate on either side.

[jenmito]

26. The media gave Obama a VERY hard time early on, accusing him of making "rookie mistakes"

and "naivete'". Face it. Edwards has never STOPPED running for president since he lost in '04. He's old news. People remember him and know him and apparently aren't drawn to him that much.

And don't forget EDWARDS tried to raise $100 million, too, by choosing NOT to take matching funds in Feb. '07. As a matter of fact, HE chose to forego matching funds before Obama did. It's not Obama's fault that he was able to raise that much money from the most donors. :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

Show me the statistical data. The data shows Obama is the media's choice by a mile

Edwards and Obama were basically at the same level in the polls. Then came the media hoopla about Obama's announcement as the Second Coming. Contrast that to the blip Edwards got for his announcement. The media set the narrative from the beginning and that influenced poll numbers after Obama was endorsed by the media along with Hillary.

Study of coverage early in the cycle.

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative

-snip-

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Edwards has not raised $100 million because he is a candidate of change, not corporations.

[jenmito]

38. "Edwards has not raised $100 million because he is a candidate of change, not corporations."

That's a lie. He TRIED to raise that much money but was unable to...not unwilling. How ELSE do you explain his CHOICE to FOREGO matching funds in order to "remain competitive" with Hillary? (That was BEFORE Obama made up his mind whether or not to take them.

And like I said, he's old news. Everyone knew he was going to run again ever since he lost in '04.

[jackson_dem]

42. You ignore the data and repeat talking points

Study of coverage early in the cycle.

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative

Explain that one...

-snip-

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

What does running before have to do with a blackout during the first five months of the campaign?

[jenmito]

48. It's a FACT, not "talking points," that he first chose NOT to take matching funds in order to stay

competitive. I can't understand how his supporters can't face the TRUTH. HE CHOSE TO NOT TAKE MATCHING FUNDS WHEN HE THOUGHT HE COULD RAISE AS MUCH AS HILLARY. Want a link to the date he made that decision?

I already explained it. He's not inspiring, authentic, nor new. Sorry. :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

51. The data has been posted twice. You have not answered it at all

Study of coverage early in the cycle.

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative

Explain that one...

-snip-

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

What does running before have to do with a blackout during the first five months of the campaign?
"We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this v

[jenmito]

54. I explained it to you...

I gave you MY opinion. That's all I can give. Maybe it's also because he wasn't able to raise enough money (even though he tried) so he wasn't taken seriously. He doesn't have enough to remain competitive everywhere. Why do you think he got only 4% in Nevada?

[jackson_dem]

60. Why was Obama getting such favorable coverage when no one else was?

Ignore Edwards for a while. Answer about the media's endorsement of Obama.

Edwards getting one-fourth of the coverage of Obama was not anywhere near proportionate to their poll numbers at the time.

What does fundraising and Nevada have to do with the media endorsing Obama in the first five months of 2007? Edwards was competitive in fundraising at the time as well. It was only after the blackout took its toll did he fall way behind in fundraising and the polls.

[jenmito]

65. WHAT media endorsement of Obama? Do you forget how he was raked over the coals at first?

I can't answer about something that doesn't exist. You're not looking at things realistically if you couldn't see his negative coverage even though his positions were the right ones.

[jackson_dem]

73. You continue to ignore the data. No one got as much good media than Obama.

[chimpymustgo]

36. He's not ANGRY - that's the corporate media characterization.

That said, who the hell isn't angry about the crap we've endured the past 8 years???

If you watch Edwards, he is forceful, but often smiling. But, he does not have an angry style.

[jenmito]

44. He WAS angry until he saw it wasn't working. Politicians who knew and liked him said they didn't

recognize the new John Edwards. You see what you want to see. I see a phony.

[jackson_dem]

46. lol you mean one politician named Chris Dodd who was running against Edwards and attacking Edwards

[jenmito]

53. Not just him. Others in the media said the same thing. And it was obvious.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. I see a phony here too and it isn't Edwards.

:eyes:

[jenmito]

57. Like I care what you think of me!

:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. Like I care what you think of Edwards.

[jenmito]

67. You obviously do since you've been posting to me back and forth on the subject.

:shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. You're right. My bad.

I should just have ignored you from the get go. I will do that now.

[chimpymustgo]

72. I see someone not paying attention. Edwards' message is very much the same as it was in 04.

Perhaps there's more urgency in his demeanor - but given how we've all been mugged and robbed by the BFEE - shouldn't there be?

[Triana]

45. Do you know what they mean when they say "too angry"?

They mean that they're afraid (but won't admit it).

They're afraid that the person making all that noise might upset the status quo that benefits them so much at the expense of others.


THAT'S what it means when someone says you're "too angry".

I KNOW. I'm a woman. I get that shit all the time.

And THAT is what it means.

Edwards is NOT "too angry"

The problem the "he's too angry" complainers REALLY have with him is that they're afraid he might change things. And he WILL. And they NEED to be changed.

[jenmito]

56. They mean he went after Hillary like an attack dog while Obama went after her with a velvet glove...

And do you notice he changed his style after being booed at the CNN debate in NV?

How will he change things? By making more "mistakes" like co-sponsoring the IWR, like voting for the Bankruptcy Bill, like being involved in a hedge fund, and later apologize for it all? :eyes:

[saracat]

25. ha!ha! ha! ha!ha! Ha! ha! ha! Ha!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. He hasn't gotten much, but you know that, right?

Playing games, are we? :eyes:

[jenmito]

15. Yes he has. He's been on the cover of Newsweek right before the Iowa caucuses,

he was all over the news right before them, too, calling him "the sleeper" just like the Newsweek cover, and he's been on many news channels. And lately he's done every show possible.

[jackson_dem]

19. And Obama was on the cover of Newsweek for the first time when?

How many years did it take for Edwards to finally make it onto the cover of Newsweek? Now compare the accomplishments of both at the time they first appeared on the Newsweek cover.

You can't deny the facts. Edwards has received a tiny fraction of coverage the two celebrity candidates have and this was the case from the very beginning of the campaign. It was never in proportion to the polls. Funny how on the rethug side there was enough room for five candidates in the media narrative...

[jenmito]

23. He was on once, too. And he EARNED it by inspiring so many people.

Edwards has been running for president since '03. Back in the '04 election we Clarkies were complaining that CLARK got no coverage when he was doing better than Edwards.

Edwards has been there/done that. He remade himself into an angry candidate. Not appealing. Not to mention his rhetoric didn't match his record.

Obama has more govt. experience than Edwards. Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR, voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, and was more conservative than he pretended to be once he left the Senate.

[jackson_dem]

24. WTF did he earn before he cast a single vote in the Senate?

The Obamite swiftboating of Edwards has nothing to do with your mythmaking about Obama and the media. Clark? What the hell does Clark have to do with anything?

It took Edwards a decade in public life to finally got on the cover of Newsweek; it took Obama 0 votes to do so.

[jenmito]

29. Obama has worked "in public life" for almost 20 years compared to your claim of

Edwards' "decade." Do some research.

[jackson_dem]

32. How many votes had he cast in the Senate when he first appeared on the cover of Newsweek?

Try discussing instead of posting Obamite talking points. No state legislator makes it onto the cover of Newsweek.

[jenmito]

61. Thousands in the Illinois Senate.

Those votes count. And like I said, he inspired people greatly which is why he became popular (while being called "naive" and making "rookie mistakes.") Name a "talking point" I'm posting.

[saracat]

28. Ha! ha!Ha! ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. ....

:boring:

[asdjrocky]

21. You're kidding, right?

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. ...

:thumbsup:

[asdjrocky]

31. Feel free to use it-

There is no logical answer to that graph.

[jenmito]

33. Um, that's a snapshot of SIX DAYS. Edwards has been running for nearly six YEARS.

It's nobody's fault but his own that he was unable to raise as much money as the others when he chose NOT to take matching funds.

[asdjrocky]

35. Um, did you somehow miss this-

Edwards and Obama were basically at the same level in the polls. Then came the media hoopla about Obama's announcement as the Second Coming. Contrast that to the blip Edwards got for his announcement. The media set the narrative from the beginning and that influenced poll numbers after Obama was endorsed by the media along with Hillary.

Study of coverage early in the cycle.

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative

-snip-

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Edwards has not raised $100 million because he is a candidate of change, not corporations.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

:shrug:

[Triana]

59. "Edwards has not raised $100 million because he is a candidate of change, not corporations."

YES! I'm saving that...thanks rocky. Damn right he is.

[jenmito]

69. It's NOT TRUE! He WANTED to raise as much as Hillary but couldn't.

He chose NOT to take matching funds (meaning he chose NOT to "take a stand") in Feb. '07. Explain THAT!

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. ...

:boring:

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. Edwards has had to fight for every bit of media coverage he has received that hasn't been negative.

And doing every possible show, is about all he gets.

Hillary and Obama also do every show possible, too.

Edwards is in this on a shoe string and against all odds.

The corporate owned media has him in their sights and you know it, as we Edwards supporters do. But nice try on your part. :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

40. Will jemito tell us how many votes Obama had cast when he first appeared on the cover of Newsweek?

It is a national magazine. Jenmito says he "earned" his coverage. With what? Let's see his accomplishments at the time.

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Ha! I won't hold my breath.

:evilgrin:

[jackson_dem]

47. One of the few was his vote for Condi Rice's confirmation

That is a hint for our buddy. So voting for Condi Rice "earned" him the cover of Newsweek? :rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. ...

:yoiks: :evilgrin:

[jackson_dem]

63. Where is jenmito?

I want to hear how voting for Condi Rice "earns" being on the cover of Newsweek. :spray:

[SammyWinstonJack]

66. jenmito has nothing too say on that.

:evilgrin:

[jenmito]

71. Jenmito was busy arguing with someone who supposedly didn't care what she thought.

[jenmito]

70. I already stated it above that he casted thousands of votes in the State Senate where

he was since nearly ten years ago. Then you can't deny he inspired many people which made him a "celebrity."

[Omega3]

17. you obama supporters are childish to say the least

[Snotcicles]

50. He's starting to get some now, after that excellent debate the other night. nt

[lisainmilo]

64. he hasn't that's why WE ARE JUMPING FOR JOY!!!!!

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :bounce:

[JDPriestly]

5. Is it possible to watch it on the internet?

[Armstead]

9. probably-- check CNN.com later or U Tube

[asdjrocky]

11. Thanks for the heads up!

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Yes thanks!

[CatWoman]

20. Hi, Armstead

I'm stalking you :hi:

:loveya:

[Sparkly]

41. He did very well. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. I will have to catch the repeat. Go John!

:bounce: