Why would obviously qualified candidates get virtually no support?

[Syrinx]

Richardson, Biden, and Dodd all have very impressive resumes, yet they got virtually no support in the Iowa caucuses.

Why?

Is it because General Electric, Disney, Viacom, and Newscorp told Iowa, and the rest of us, that it was a two-way race between Clinton and Obama?

I think that's likely the case. And if so, the results tell me two things.

One, corporations frame the debate in this country. That should be obvious.

Secondly, John Edwards placed second, albeit by the narrowest of margins, without the benefit of corporate promotion, and in fact by spitting fire and brimstone into the faces of the corporations that have enforced a near blackout on his candidacy.

Big business is running scared from John Edwards, and that is why he was shut out of the media coverage.

Barack Obama is an inspiring story, but the inspiration is mostly on the surface. His beautiful family well represents most Democrats' desire for a final arrival into a colorblind American age, but our problems as a nation run too deep to be satisfied by emotional symbolism.

John Edwards' entrance into the progressive movement is belated, but I think it is a sincere one.

Obama is enthusiastically supported by the likes of my own congressman, Artur Davis, a good friend of Obama.

Davis, superficially, is also a person of "hope," and "change." He's an African-American from a "red" state that seeks "compromise" and "unity."

Unfortunately, Davis has pretty much followed the DLC line on a long string of issues. He voted in favor of the horrible "Bankruptcy Reform Bill." He votes lockstep with AIPAC. He's voted with the Republicans on FISA. He voted for the Military Commissions Act. (Repeal of Habeas Corpus).

Is Obama any different?

This election is being manipulated by big business. (Obviously.)

Edwards is the lone candidate standing for the American people against big business.

I understand the romantic allure of electing the first African-American, or the first female president, but the corporate interests are guilty of clouding our minds with romance, when we should focus on facts.

With their control of the media, they tried to boil our choice down to TWO candidates. They largely succeeded. They killed the candidacies of supremely qualified candidates like Richardson, Biden and Dodd, as well as of Gravel and Kucinich.

They haven't quite killed the candidacy of John Edwards.

All of us that want to tell corporate America to butt out of our democracy, to leave it to actual human citizens, must give our active and hopeful support to John Edwards.

He's fighting for us. We must fight for him.

[nickinSTL]

1. I think it's the media...

the American people have been told that there are 3 candidates...and one of them (Edwards) isn't really worthy of attention. Coming in above Clinton in Iowa anyway may be hard for them to ignore, but they'll try.

[Canuckistanian]

8. You're right

I just heard a CBC (Canadian) report on the results last night. They talked about Obama and Clinton only.

Obama with his "message of change" and "Hillary's disappointing results". Not one MENTION of the candidate who came in second.

Now, I'm not blaming the CBC reporter. I find CBC coverage of American politics spotty at best with very little insight into the REAL poltical stories. I think that the CBC reporter just fell in with a pack of American journalists who "spoon-fed" him the official line.

I think Edwards needs to get in if only to wake people up to the fact that their media have no clue or interest in what's REALLY going on.

[mwb970]

10. It is odd to report only on the first- and third-place finishers.

The media has this Clinton-Obama narrative and they are not going to let it go just because of Edwards.

[Canuckistanian]

12. The reporter even said:

"This is obviously a two-person race - Obama and Clinton"

I'm going to send in a complaint to CBC about this.

[progressoid]

23. All of the "pundits" I heard did the same thing.

Analyzed the Obama and Clinton campaigns only. It's like Edwards didn't exist :grr:

[izzie]

2. I think and hope it is more what is in what people think of the USA

I think the WH and Congress have made us feel bad and most people want some thing different. To many old time guys and thoughts around to my way of thinking. We just need 'new' people. Some one like Bush has brought the history of his father and grandfather with him. Out of date thinking. That is not what this country is about any more or that is my way of thinking. I am old and do come from that back ground but this is how I see it. I also feel good about it. Time for change.

[Skidmore]

3. I think you are on the money with that analysis, izzie.

I feel the same way as well. I think that the general understanding that Congress and the Senate have done precious little to check * and his administration contributed to that feeling as well. It is time to see if people with fresh perspectives can tackle problems with new ideas. It is time for a great change.

[izzie]

20. Well I have always thought that being an Am. was a thought

It is an ideal that has passed out into the world and it is not going back into the bottle. It is a simple thing to think about now. People can rule them self. It has moved world wide and I think that is what Am. is all about. Some how Bush and co. have brought back autocrat govt. and I do not like it and I do not think most Am. really like it. I have never seen Am. as a white Christian country even if I come from that very white old time Am. back ground. Frankly we need the gene pool of every one we can get to keep this country great and I do love being an Am. My family has been here since 1620 and just because I do not like Bush I do not feel I should have to live some where else. Lets fix what has gone wrong. I think we can.

[bklyncowgirl]

4. You have something there. The American people--in both parties--are fed up.

The political class, inside the Beltway mentality has screwed this country over. Things are not going well and someone's got to pay the price.

I personally did not want to support anyone who was responsible for getting us into Iraq. Since I also would like to feel that the person I'm voting for had the knowledge and experience to actually do the job, I've thrown my support to Bill Richardson--a guy who's been out of Washington long enough to have received a thorough dose of reality.

I can perfectly understand the appeal of Barack Obama (who I could support enthusiastically)--or even Mike Huckabee--though I'd never vote for the man.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. I haven't read through DU thoroughly...

and have to read through quite a few posts to get a real feel for what happened last night (I trust this place for "news" and analysis than papers or TV).

I was surprised Edwards has continued to be shut out by the media given his second-place finish.

But, from what I just heard, I am also surprised by how Obama took so many independents and even some republicans in Iowa.

I'm an Edwards supporter, but don't dislike Obama, so I say congratulations to both camps! :hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

7. I was also surprised that Biden, especially, but...

Dodd and Richardson didn't do better. I'm sure Obama's supporters aren't surprised, but I think the rest of us are rather surprised by the outcome.

Again, good for Obama...not taking anything away from him at all. :)

[zalinda]

9. They didn't do better because it was all over

the place that if they didn't come in at the 15% to throw their votes to Obama. It was too late to refute that claim to make a difference when they heard about it. It was really weird that ALL 3 (or 4 in you include Kucinich) would say to throw their votes to Obama. And then I read somewhere that it was Obama's camp that floated those rumors. It was made to look like those 3 had given up, too bad, they deserved better.

zalinda

[CarbonDate]

6. Being "qualified" is over-rated.

Nobody was more qualified than Nixon... or George H.W. Bush.

Besides, it's hard enough to get people to pay attention to a two person race. You're going to get them to pay attention to a twenty person race? Puh-leeze.

[Zorra]

11. Must be the media. Because Kucinich has been standing for

the American people, and voting for the American people, against big business for a long time, long before John Edwards adopted his new populist stance (which I support wholeheartedly).

I'm really not surprised at how few people know about DK's opposition to corporate control of government. He got far less media coverage than John Edwards, and the media is working pretty hard at ignoring Sen Edwards.

Dennis on corporate power

The challenge before us today is whether we can maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether we will timidly accept the economic, social, and political consequences of a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

The implosion of the Enron Corporation is a cautionary tale of the danger to the people of our nation, to our economy, and to our political system of unregulated corporations. The influence wielded by the power industry at every level of government must be shaken. The drive to privatize must be halted.

Enron's considerable financial contributions to the campaign coffers of 71 Senators and 186 House members clearly demonstrate the urgency of creating full public financing of our elections.

Government at the state and federal levels must reclaim its rightful role as regulator in the public interest, restructure electric rates to protect residents and small businesses, finance the construction of municipal power systems, and ensure -- as my Progressive Tax Act of 2003 does -- that corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Despite the overwhelming influence which corporations have in the life of our nation, I see a new era of corporate accountability. I see a new horizon in America where ethics, sustainability, and sensible priorities guide corporate conduct in cooperation with vigilant, fair-minded, government regulation.

We cannot stand by idly while powerful economic engines -- virtually unregulated corporations -- violate workers' rights, human rights, and the environment, sweeping aside antitrust laws, eliminating competition.

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.

Corporations must be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes. If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. Corporations pay three and half times less in taxes now than they did in the 1950s. Working families have to make up the difference.

We need an administration that will take corporate crime seriously and significantly increase the capacity of the SEC, the FTC, and the Justice Department to address it.

Wall Street should not get its hands on Americans' hard-earned Social Security savings. The Social Security system is not in financial crisis, but it faces the same political crisis much of our government faces: the pressure to privatize.

I am working to prevent the privatization of Social Security, of water, of municipal services, and of our democracy.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/dennis-on-corporate-power/

[readmoreoften]

13. Emotional symbolism. Thank you. This describes Obama perfectly.

He is a corporate candidate and will act accordingly--when he isn't evading or speechifying. He is a symbol of African-American progress. Meanwhile, I'm worried about what the lack of substantive change is going to do to the Black families who live next door and across the street from me. What's going to happen to the deaf boy across the street when his mother has to return to her shitty, low paying job.

Not that symbols aren't important. They are. But when they are backed by real change, not Change that's when things really happen for people.

[robbedvoter]

14. In 2004, MSM crowned Kerry before Iowa. They do pick for us.

Still, it's a better pick this time (for now) than in 2004. Only GRAVEL & Kucinich on that list are better choices.
Now if they'd only count the votes.

[Ninga]

15. Send Edwards money...now....as much as you can cough up.....

[MethuenProgressive]

16. "Richardson has arguably the best resume of any candidate for the presidency in nation’s history"

Richardson instinctive with Iowa-flavored humor
by: Douglas Burns

RED OAK -- ...rural Iowans love humor. Go into any coffee shop, local eatery, bar or grain elevator. Have lunch with the Rotary or Kiwanis clubs. Customers joke with waitresses. Truck drivers joke with clerks. Old men in feed hats spend hours over 30-cent cups of coffee giving each other the business over something or another. In our more urban areas, and the growing spirit-crushing suburbs, there are a lot Hillary Clintons. She's rushing to the White House. They're rushing to Bed, Bath & Beyond. But in my part of the state, western Iowa, the place where the caucuses will be decided, naturally folksy humor goes a long way.

Of the top four Democratic candidates in the race, Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor, is most natural with a Sunday lemonade-brand of spontaneous humor. It’s instinctive for him, and it’s one of the reasons he’s climbing in the polls. He’s disarming. The jokes get people to see past the suit and tie and title and platoon of earnest young staffers. “We hit 10 percent,” Richardson said Saturday in Red Oak. “That’s pretty good for having been at the margin of error.” Richardson noted that New Mexico now has eight movies being made in the state. “One of the conditions is that I have to star in all of them,” he joked, with a wink to the fact that's he's a few pounds ahead of leading man fighting weight.

Near the end of his visit to Red Oak, Richardson tapped the shoulder of a woman sitting next to him while making a point about education. The woman clearly hadn’t been paying full attention to his remarks and was a little startled. “Did I wake you up?” said Richardson with a wide smile. He tapped his watch and said, “I’ll finish soon.”
In Denison a few weeks ago Richardson said he signed a smoking ban in New Mexico but exempted cigar bars. He shrugged and told the audience, “Hey, I’m a cigar smoker.” Richardson talks about how he will work on Iraq the first day he’s in office, energy independence the next, and health-care and education on the third day. “The fourth day,” he says, pausing. “I’ll take off.” That line works on so many levels.

The new advertisements in which Richardson sits down for a job interview for the presidency with a rude, sandwich-chomping “employer,” are more humorous than much of the material late-night comics produce. Another reason humor works well for Richardson: There’s little danger the use of it will make him seem an unserious person. Richardson has arguably the best resume of any candidate for the presidency in the nation’s history: Governor, congressman, United Nations ambassador and Secretary of Energy. As Richardson hits the small towns of Iowa, pays his due the old-fashioned way, he’ll make many Iowans comfortable with him. He comes across as a person who genuinely likes people. The same cannot be said of all candidates.
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=178

[never_get_over_it]

17. Oh its the media

and I for one am effing sick of "them" picking our candidates and our Presidents

they destroyed Al Gore and let "them" get away with stealing FL - they destroyed Howard Dean - and I'm sure in the next few weeks they will destroy Clinton and Edwards.

SO sad - but I don't think it can ever really be changed.....

On edit: just before the Iowa vote was about to start I heard an ABC radio news that said the race was between Clinton and Obama and NEVER EVEN mentioned John Edwards name... made me literally SCREAM

[Indy Lurker]

18. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. - Napoleon Bonaparte

I think the media people are just lazy.

Let me through out another quote, "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."


They already have tons of Hillary material, and by now everyone has done quite a bit of Obama stuff as well.

With tight deadlines, who's going to bother learning about #2 when you already have half the story written for 1 & 3 the night before.

Media has an obligation to provide truthful information, not to useful information.

[PATRICK]

19. It was still a big setback for Bush

because their primary strategy is in trouble. It is just as significant that Huckabee, who would make Bob Dole's statistics look like Reagan over Mondale by comparison has trounced the chief stooge. He did that while Romney showed his cheating hand and they rushed the dirt on the upstart. Now it can keep descending into the same mess from which Romney can only emerge with more propping and dirt from the Bushes. Their Clinton strategy also may be disintegrating. I expect to see a lot of heat on the newcomers in the shape of outrageous dirt and media manipulation to get the now wounded Clinton back on track. Yet that is looking unlikely.

Despite the story of her core in tiny Iowa not showing strength the real story might be the desertion of establishment party pros who are shaking their heads and not waiting for the people to come around to their conclusions. Wary of weak coattails at least, the old cynical political skills will start vanishing. When they dare to start switching to accelerate the public defection they will have to move fast to catch up with the onrushing primaries themselves. Things could get very interesting.

With Hillary out, Edwards at last has the one to focus on, trying to squeeze in between the phony media contest between Obama and Clnton if it fades and their rush to coronate Obama quickly to kill the debate over agenda and candidacies. It could get more like the complex longer primary seasons because the GOP motives are split and they have huge problems of their own. In their camp, the excitement of the horrible drama of the Conqueror Worm can simply feed the rank and file malaise and shatter their search for a unified front. For which they can thank Bush's team which has manipulated all this sorry show with the same acumen they displayed setting up the puppet regime in Iraq.

The advantage is still with Obama and he is not the type of candidate who will sink after a few early successes. Edwards can conceivably win and based on past experience, Hillary can effect the race mightily, but not win. Magic mirrors only work for Republican evil. too many tragic contradictions have been kept in a precarious balance that the voters can upset fairly easily, and in doing so prove and justify the rejection of broad but weak support and long reputation.

Of all Edwards' problems the main thing is the personal attraction and strength matching his. In the past Bill Clinton was marred and running behind. He remained still the most personable and strong candidate in himself. Despite the onrush of primaries that might have tossed the grueling judgment aside, people can still get a real choice this time- maybe. There are different factors this time that might prevent Obama from crushing the field as easily as Kerry.

Might I remind all supporters that in this drama, the battle of agenda should reign supreme. Where the people and the nation are currently is still nearly in a state of unprepared innocence and the reigning fakery of the corporate regime. Pushing through this is something far more engaged and awakening. Whoever the nominee is we want the best vision among the people even more than what the nominee has campaigned upon. Winning. Hope. Restoration. Justice would be nice. Meeting crises openly and head on with a lights on policy in all the dark corners. Facing vote suppression and cheating head on. Fighting for more progressive candidates.

While I continue to support Edwards head and shoulders above all others, today overall has left me with optimism that everything is heading in the right direction. Let's keep pushing it that way without enabling a comeback for the Bush dirt and the media interference. The fear-mongering over Obama is not helpful. We'll have trouble enough with the new attacks that Bush plans for any Dem. He has shown the strength to accomplish things over errors and setbacks. Now for the harrowing hurdles of what the people have to say along the course of swift events.

[WinkyDink]

21. They aren't telegenic, nor Super-Christian, nor 9/11-ish. Would that I were joking.

[Hugabear]

22. This is hardly news - look at the Rethugs

They've been whining and crying that there aren't any "true Christian conservatives" in this year's race. But what about Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo? While I would never want to see any of these three anywhere near the WH, they seem like they would have been 'ideal' GOP candidates. Yet until recently, Ghouliani, Romney, and McCain got most of the attention. Even Huckabee isn't someone they really like very much.