If John Edwards had $100 million, he would get more attention...

[kentuck]

That is primarily why Hillary and Obama have been given the nomination by the MSM after only two states have voted. There is no reason to believe that their 30-odd percent of the votes will continue in the future or that no one else has a chance to win the election.

This is why Mitt Romney gets the attention that he gets. He has a lot of money to spend. This is why they hype up Mayor Bloomberg - he has a ton of money to spend. And who gets that money? The same people that are telling us who we should vote for and who the favorites are at this early stage.

The MSM have the power, with the role of money, to determine the choices that we end up with. And those choices are the ones that have money to give to the corporate media. There is only one solution. Take the over-riding role of money out of politics.

[liberal N proud]

1. NO! - not with his stand against the corporate status quo

He is the one candidate that stands for the American People and not for the American Corporation.

The corporate media is doing the hatchet job for the US corporate machine who actually has their fingers in the government.

[Benhurst]

2. Not many years ago, taking the money was a rallying cry for all

progressives.

As of late, the ability to raise grotesque sums to influence elections has been seen as a status symbol for many Democrats, an indication, somehow, of a candidate's fitness for office.

Your right, though. There will be no reform until candidates sell themselves in order to buy corporate media coverage and support.

[cali]

3. If JE had put

$10 million of his own fortune into his campaign coffers, he'd be in a lot better shape. That's what Kerry did- and it paid off big time for him.

But I agree that we have to get money out of politics- I just don't see how that's going to happen.

[doc03]

6. Then the MSM would say he is buying

his way into office. If you mention Edwards to most people now they bring up his $400 haircut. Kucinich is made out to be nuts because he saw a UFO. Richardson, Biden and Dodd by far the most experianced were totally ignored. If the Republicans were Democrats, Mittins would be buying his way in office, Rudy would have organized crime connections and John McCain would be a crazy old man.

[cali]

7. They didn't say it about Kerry, and who cares anyway?

It was a tactical mistake to take federal funding.

[doc03]

10. The heck they didn't, the Repubs

quit buying Heinz Ketchup because it was rumoured he was getting money from them. Anyway he is not President.

[AP]

24. Kerry didn't "give" his campaign money. He loaned his campaign money. But his wealth was a problem

in the general election anyway. Don't you remember all the jokes about TH-K's money on late night?

Snowboarding, windsurfing, and even his attempt to look like a hunter gave the impression that he was wealthy, and not sporty or young.

[saracat]

29. They absolutely would .They already said it about his Senate race!

And the difference is, in Edwards case, if he had the money for more media, his messge resonates.That is why the earned media doesn't want to touch him. But his messgae is getting through any way.he just has to stay in long enough.He is the best prepared, has the best messgae and the best solutions.He has actual answers and if offering way more than platitudes and rhetoric! That is why he is "dangerous".

[AP]

14. Did Kerry "give" his campaign that money, or did he loan his campaign that money?

I believe Edwards has loaned his campaign his money.

[cali]

18. He loaned it. JE has not loaned his campaign any money. n/t

[AP]

21. My mistake, but he did take out a loan for 9M secured by the federal matching

And it's helping him now. And if he stays in the delegate hunt, then maybe he will lend his campaign his own money, as John Kerry did...

[zalinda]

20. Have you ever been poor?

I can tell you right now, that when you are poor and have made money, you don't just "give" your money away. Always in the back of your mind, you think you could be poor again, and helpless. Hell, Elizabeth just let out the secret that she never buys retail if she can help it, she is always looking for a discount. That tells me that they are not in the rich man's mind set. The only thing that they have splurged on is their house, a house that will probably provide shelter for their aging parents when it comes to that. They don't drive fancy cars, they are practical people. And, as a practical poor person, you don't spend the money if you don't have to.

zalinda

[cali]

25. Immaterial.

I meant loan, not give away.

[saracat]

30. And that is very true. It is also true of many people of inherited wealth.

[dkf]

4. This is true.

That is why Edwards supporters need to step up big time if they want to keep him in.

[bigtree]

5. ironic to his philosophy of reducing moneyed influences

we need political advertisement reform which provides some sort of equitable time and exposure for candidates.

[MH1]

8. How do you propose to do that?

"Take the over-riding role of money out of politics."

I agree wholeheartedly, btw. But I don't think there is an easy solution, when you factor in the First Amendment and privacy concerns. I have some ideas for a solution, but I would like to hear others.

Edit to add: and nothing will change how the 2008 election will be conducted. So I suggest people make the best of the system as it is, or we will be stuck with the worst after the GE. Again.

[Blarch]

9. Lets be honest now.

Obama and Hillary do not get media attenion because they have lots of money. They get the attention because of the support they have.

The people support Obama and Hillary with money. The media focuses on the candidates with the most support.

Support = money = media coverage.

[bigtree]

11. The media has many more influential interests other than the ad money

do I really have to outline the pernicious interests which influence coverage? Did you not notice that John Edwards is railing against those very interests daily?

[Blarch]

13. Have you ever noticed

how the media gives the front runner the most TV time ? ...Did you notice how every story before NH was how bad Hillary was doing, and if she was toast ? ...remember how the story changed the next day ? ...overnight the story changed, she was now the front runner again. This happened for ONE REASON...The people voted for her. It had nothing to do with the media.

Do you understand this ? ...The vote drove the coverage.

[bigtree]

15. that's not true

Obama and Clinton* have dominated coverage all the way through. The comparisons have been posted here several times. I'm surprised that you are really arguing that their coverage is driven by the voters rather than their own moneyed benefactors.

[Blarch]

19. Holy shit.

the reason the media is covering them is because they are the two front runners.

They are not front runners because the media made them this way...it's because the people chose to support them. Early on the people chose to send Obama and Hillary the most money, it had nothing to do with the media.

Why does Hillary get more coverage than Obama, because she is doing slightly better in polls.

[AP]

23. Edwards was ahead of Clinton in Iowa and was never treated like a front runner

in the press leading up to the caucuses.

[dkf]

36. because he had no $

[AP]

38. Wouldn't that make the story better? Spending much less money, he beats HRC, people must like him?

[Muttocracy]

32. Just how do they get that support?

You seem to think that "the people" sat down and went through the position papers of Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson and picked Clinton or Obama and wrote a check. Nope. Guarantee you most of the voters in Iowa couldn't have explained their choice based on issues. If it worked that way, TV ads would be unnecessary.

Media turned the race into upcoming black senator vs. former first lady senator vs. guy who ran as VP last time.

Early name recognition -> media coverage -> money -> ads bought -> ads played for free on media -> money -> media discusses money raised by campaigns -> money goes to those who already have money -> more ads for those with money etc. etc.

[AP]

22. Edwards touched the third rail of politics: the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few

[doc03]

12. Hillary was labeled the front runner for

President several years ago. I would say it's more like
media coverage = support = money

[northzax]

16. of xourse

does this suprise you?edwards made a xonciois decision to take federal money and limit his fundraising. Bad call

[rucky]

17. He discussed breaking up the media monopolies. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

26. Edwards Isn't A "Sexy" Storyline

Senator Edward's problem is being third on a match...running in an election with two other candidates that fit corporate media storylines. Senator Obama's always been the media darling...a "rock star"...while Senator Clinton is their biggest punching bag. Stories are framed in the Obama/Clinton frame and Edwards doesn't stand a chance. No money can crash this party as the corporate media has their narratives to play out and Edwards just doesn't fit in.

Mittens gets the attention because he gets bashed around by the other candidates. I rarely hear either Obama or Clinton say a word about Edward. The money didn't buy Mittens Iowa or his neighboring state of New Hampshire. It's bought him "consultants" and friends, but few votes. And now the corporate media has turned Mittens into a punching bag...all glamming onto the McCain Bullshit Express.

While Senator Edwards speaks truth to power and., IMHO, is the most progressive of the candidates, he's not "media friendly". He's either too perfect looking or too angry or too something that leaves him as the third wheel...he just picked the wrong year to run, sadly.

[NoBorders]

27. What should he have done differently in order to raise that much?

[ileus]

28. Hedge fund investors aren't poor, he has that kind of money but he's not dumb

enough to waste it on running for President. He let's others spend that kind of moon money on him.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Circular reasoning, proven wrong by the recent past.

Yes, people with the money get the attention. The reason is that (Bloomberg aside) the people who have the money, are popular as proven by the amount of money they have been able to raise.

However, you have to look no further than 2004 for the reality. If someone's message truly resonates, they will get the money DESPITE media attention and then once the money goes to them, the media will follow the story, because the media is little more than a business that wants to feed off the excitement. Howard Dean beat everyone in fundraising during the primaries because the PEOPLE came to him, not because the media pumped him up or because they ignored him. He (and all candidates) ultimately exist outside the media... although once on Top, the media can do some serious damage.

Think of it like a TV Show. Whenever a show gets cancelled, people complain, "they didn't give it a chance... if they just ran it for 12 more episodes, it would catch on", however, there are shows that "Catch on" immediately and they get good ratings.

How much money a candidate raises is like a ratings system.


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008


Barack Obama has 62913 donors.
Clinton has 59403
Romney has 37323
Guiliani 37150
McCain 22994

THEN

Edwards with 21763


So yes, IF John Edwards had 100 million he would get more attention, but that would be because MORE PEOPLE contributed to his campaign, because more people are interested in it.

So, no, this is incorrect, "The MSM have the power, with the role of money, to determine the choices that we end up with." The reality is that WE have the power with the role of money to determine the choices we end up with... it is where we donate our money that determines who will get attention. People didn't donate to Edwards, thus, he isn't getting the attention.

[ellisonz]

33. Are we talking campaign funds or personal wealth?

[Triana]

34. If Edwards TOOK $100 million from lobbyists and corprats then he might get more attention...

...and if by taking that money, he could be sufficiently controlled by said lobbyists and corprats he'd probably get more attention. But he doesn't take their money and he can't be controlled (bought) by them.

SO - he gets marginalized, threatened, lambasted and ignored by the corprat-owned lamestream media and big business (US CoC) and all their friends.

[7 of 11]

35. He can always

Sue.

Suing got him his millions before why should it fail him now.

[unc70]

37. Finding gold/silver coins in shipwrecks, too.

And you appear to be lost. Hope you find you way home.