COLUMN: WHO’S AFRAID OF JOHN EDWARDS?
Media Freezes Out a Threat to Corporate Owners
In 2004 Democrats were determined to pick the presidential nominee who had the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the general election. That man was the feisty former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. One could easily imagine him mercilessly flaying Bush in debates before trouncing Yale’s least favorite son in November. Primary voters, mistakenly betting that blandness and moderation would be a better sell, chose John Kerry instead.
The party of Hubert Humphrey and Michael Dukakis seems poised to make the same mistake again, whether with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans think the country is ready for a female or black president. But I’m a glass-third-full guy. When a third of the electorate tells you “we’re” not ready for a woman or an African-American commander-in-chief, they really mean that they won’t vote for one. John Edwards is more likely to beat Romney or McCain than either of his history-making rivals, just by showing up with pale skin and a Y chromosome.
But even aside from electability, Edwards ought to be the Democratic frontrunner. His populist campaign, bashing corporations and free trade deals that have led to a decline in wages, seems perfectly timed for an economy everyone admits is in a recession. (In truth, the current downturn began with the 2000-1 dot-com crash, but whatever.) His platform offers more red meat for the party’s liberal base than Clinton or Obama: total withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, Euro-style healthcare, full financial aid for students admitted to public colleges and universities.
A while back I argued for electing Hillary to show girls that the glass ceiling had been smashed, that they could achieve anything. Then she repeated the biggest mistake of her undistinguished political career, voting for a resolution that supported Bush’s campaign to start a war with Iran. It brought back memories of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto, oppressive rulers who set their nations back. Clinton’s gender doesn’t guarantee the forward-looking leadership we need after eight years of–it’s a bumpersticker cliché, but it happens to be true–our Worst President Ever.
I never warmed to Barack Obama. Like Clinton, his legislative record is dismal–he repeatedly voted to send billion after billion of war dollars to Iraq. His high-flying rhetoric has the dubious distinction of inspiring us to…to…what? His soaring oratory, purchased on the cheap from 26-year-old speechwriters, signifies nothing. Sure, America needs a black president. But it doesn’t need one who thinks, as Obama does, that the only thing wrong with our war in Iraq is that we’re not wasting lives and taxdollars in Afghanistan instead.
If electing a woman or a black person is more important than what that candidate has done or what they believe, Democrats should draft Condi Rice.
John Edwards isn’t just the most electable Democrat–he’s the best choice. But the media is starving him of the oxygen campaigns require in order to thrive: coverage. Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards’.
“The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers,” Elizabeth Edwards told Time. “Then the media folks say, ‘See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates’…It’s enough to make you tear your hair out.”
But there’s more to the Edwards story (and non-stories) than reporters dazzled by Clinton and Obama–contenders who, though they don’t seem likely to make political history, add a bit of demographic flavor. There is no precedent in memory of the news media freezing out a major presidential candidate to this extent.
The New York Times‘ own public editor conceded that his paper had shortchanged Edwards. “In Iowa…John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll,” Clark Hoyt wrote on November 18, “yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards.”
“I don’t track our coverage by quantity,” campaign editor Richard Stevenson responded. “In a qualitative sense, we’ve covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come.”
There wasn’t.
Some point to early missteps–the $400 haircut, the big mansion, even his decision to keep running despite his wife’s cancer–as causes of Edwards’ electoral misfortune. But the truth is obvious. Major media outlets–which are owned by big corporations–hate Edwards.
“Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination,” editorialized The Des Moines Register. “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.” What scares the editorial board of the Register is that Edwards doesn’t plan to “work with the business community” at all, but to empower government to re-regulate big business.
“What’s really behind the media animus toward Edwards,” Jeff Cohen wrote for AlterNet, “is his ‘all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base’ (ABC News) or his ‘looking for some steam from the left’ (CNN).”
When the media gets tough, read the overseas press. Kevin Drawbaugh, a reporter for Reuters, knows what’s up. “Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients,” he writes for the British wire service, “and the answer is almost always the same–Democrat John Edwards.”
Drawbaugh quotes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Stanford Group think tank: “My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat…I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt.” Edwards, on the other hand, is “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist” who “would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.
Edwards scares me, too. He’s the first candidate I’ve ever admired. God help me, I actually believe that he’d rein in the corporations whose boundless greed is bleeding the country dry. If a man with integrity and guts became president, what would I do for a living?
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
31 Comments.
The only way a woman or a black person could get the nomination was by being the more conservative candidate. I guess we can expect that the first gay nominee will have to be a total fascist.
So now you're all down with Fake Joe Sixpack?
Did you forget this?
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071231.gif
I'm with ya though, Edwards is the best candidate, but unless you can figure out how he can get the spotlight, he's just another Kucinich or Nader or other also-ran.
Last night's debate was the first time I saw him have a chance, trying to wedge himself between the two Yammering Idiots, but he doesn't do that enough. We can't just sit back and whine that he doesn't get enough news, HE needs to be more visible.
Clinton and Obama, where were they on MLK day? Visible. Where was he?
Allow me to be the first:
YES! YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!
Here in Washington State we're working for Edwards all the way through our Primary on February 9, Super-Tuesday be damned!
Ted, may I print out your column and pass it out with other Edwards literature? It's great.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith JcH: He ain't Robin Hood, but he IS Little John.
The demented cynic in me is also terrified of Edwards.
Beholden to no one, running on principle, capable of his own feats of oratory, seems to actually give a shit about responsible governance.
Why wouldn't the corporate media want to eviscerate a candidate like that?
He's a threat to their very existence.
Condi Rice. Are these words just slipped by, or did you really mean it? She may very well offset first black/woman Presidential/VP candidates evenif she is chosen by Rudy Guiliani as VP candidate. Doom for Dems.
Well, where has Edwards' "two Americas" gone? Where are his catchy phrases? He has not fought as fiercely as before. Remember, he has money and advisors from defense contractors.
Talking about MSM black out, he is better placed than the negatives they were pouring over Clintons. Sickening.
When we don't deserve a Kucinich, anybody is as bad a choice. Let us concentrate on who would look better on our TVs for four more years, and feel good as ususal, until we run out of money to watch TVs.
yep, the republican-owned corporate media has totally frozen edwards out, because they knew he would win. and they've focused instead on clinton and obama, because they know they will lose. i first noticed this strategy last summer, when everywhere i looked a saw pictures of hillary and obama, and i had to wonder whether edwards was even still running. the republican-owned media knew from the beginning that edwards was the only real threat, so they neutralized him, just like they neutralized dean in '04. now the dems will run either clinton or obama in november, and lose, since neither is electable.
so get ready for 4 more years of repig rule, folks. and it's going to be either romney or (more likely) huckabee, so not only will we get 4 more years of pro-corporate oppressive bullshit, but both of those guys are mouth-breathing jesus freak idiots, so the american christian taliban is going to end up even more powerful than it's already become under cheney/bush.
the media has total control over who the dems run in the general election, and just like in '04, they'll choose a candidate they know will result in 4 more years of repig rule. in '04 they chose the guy they knew would go along with getting cheated out of a victory (kerry and bush have been friends for over 4 decades), but this time they won't even have to cheat– all they needed to do was eliminate edwards, the only threat, and now they're set. let the dems throw up a tomato can for romney or huckabee (or both together on one ticket) to knock own. it's just a formality at this point.
good thing progressives are already used to having to vent their enraged spleens on the internet all day while watching the wingnuts get their way on every issue, since they'll be doing it for at least another 4 more years. this "election" is already over, and the dems have lost again (the voters, not the party– the party is most likely in on it, like they were in '04).
Re: Joe Sixpack, I didn't forget. I'm a cartoonist. I lampoon everyone, including the guy I'm voting for.
Ted, may I print out your column and pass it out with other Edwards literature? It's great.
Sure!
When we don't deserve a Kucinich, anybody is as bad a choice.
People have been emailing me about Kucinich for months. Maybe it's personal, but I found him incredibly rude when I met him personally. I don't think he actually has genuine empathy for the people who most need help.
There is as discussion, revolving around this column, on reddit:
http://reddit.com/r/politics/info/66ais/comments/
Hey Ted,
You make some fantastic points about Edwards.
But when it comes to the Democrats, my Give-A-Flying-Fuck is busted.
I live in Florida, so it won't matter who I vote for in the primary, the Democratic Party stated they won't allow any of my state's delegates to be seated at the convention because we moved up our primary.
It should be noted that the rules, agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans, state that if a party were to move its primary before the Iowa Caucus, that it would lose HALF of its delegates.
The Republicans are allowing half of their Florida delegates to the convention. Why does the Democratic Party feel the need to punish Florida more severely than is provided for in the rules they agreed to?
This decision made me lose all respect I once had for Howard Dean.
Of course, it's not that Florida, the fourth-largest state in the union, had much say in the primaries anyway. After all, after rinky-dink states like Iowa and New Hampshire have their say, the field is narrowed down to only a couple of well-funded mediocrities.
The only solution I see is a completely open, national presidential primary day.
I second Hand2Hand, here Ted.
I live in Michigan, where Edwards and Obama got cheated by being the only ones to withdraw from the ballet. We didn't get ANY stinking delegates from the Dems, so I voted for McCain in the Republican primary.
I've heard people chastise me for voting for the only competent Repug (in my mind the only one they have that's remotely qualified), because they want someone who is 'easy to beat.'
Let me tell you, Democrats have never shied away from the opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and they may well do it next November. Bloomberg and Nadar are both considering a 3rd party run, which might make this an interesting election.
All the Repug candidates are severely flawed. I do believe that Clinton, Obama or Edwards would make a good presidential choice and that all three have a good chance of running, I'm really saddened at what i perceive to be fear on your part that America just can't break for a minority. Historically this kind of election has been very close, and personally I don't believe that the Repugs really want to win.
Think about it, Ted. What do they have to win? The business class has won an enormous amount and the economic disaster looming threatens to expose them to a populist onslaught. The military industrial complex is in fat city regardless of what happens. The evangelicals are fracturing and realizing they made a deal with the devil and the devil has no interest in delivering them Mike Huckleberry.
Entrenched power is content to sit back and ride out a Jimmy Carter type presidency because they know the next president is going to be easy to freeze out of change.
We're not going to fix anything until we take a step back, and demand that the people in power change…we need to stop whining about WHO is there, and start demanding that they do a good job.
That's what McCain is tapping into in his South Carolina acceptance speech. Until we make them radically change the system itself, we're all doomed regardless of who wins. -Dave
Ted, your personal experience with Kucinich is not surprising. That is how an angry man, who is pissed off with way things are happening around, mostly behave. That may be his hinderance to win more support. He did not have very happy childhood, nor a smooth sailing afterwords. However, we cannot set him aside by simply extrapolating that angry attitude.
Do you know, sometime you too sound very rude. Some of my friends have mentioned that sometime I am very rude when I need not be angry. Ignorance may be very pleasant and likable – or "likable enough."
An angry learnt person is different and better than ignorant-arrogant idiots. But we can have the later person as "President" not the other.
Do you know, sometime you too sound very rude.
That may well be true when I'm facing off with Sean Hannity, but even with him I never start the insults–I respond in kind, though.
I would be surprised if many people who've met me personally would say that I'm rude. Pf course, I could be wrong; it's for others to judge.
Re: Kucinich's rudeness when he met Ted.
As my grandmother used to say, maybe his feet hurt.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith Floss Forbes: If you don't know the tune, sing tenor.
Ted, I've never met you personally, but you responded very nicely to some fan email I sent you. It meant a lot to me.
Aggie Dude, I feel your pain. Michigan, like Florida, is much more representative of this nation as a whole. So why is it that two of the whitest, most rural states in the country get to dictate to the rest of us who should get the party nominations?
It doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I get sick of all the jokes about Florida politics and elections. The fact is, how successful are Iowa and New Hampshire in choosing winners for the Democrats? Not very from what I've seen in my lifetime.
Give me a break! Those boneheads in Iowa chose Kerry as the Democratic nominee in 2004. I'm tired of them choosing the candidates for the rest of us!
Ted,
I just noticed that John Edwards has the Meet the Press date right before Tsunami Tuesday. Candidates who appear on Meet the Press right before an election have thus far done well; Obama/Huckabee, then McCain and Clinton. My suspicion is that Edwards needs a bump from that and might be able to take on Tsunami Tuesday to catapult into the lead. Think about all those Deep South states voting, etc.
If he is a contender I wouldn't be surprised if Richardson and maybe some others throw an endorsement at him.
Edwards won't win, but the way things are going he'll have enough delegates at the convention to play king maker. That'll be worth something I guess.
Do you know, sometime you too sound very rude.
Print makes everyone sound rude. He does not come off like that live, at all. When he was on the radio, he really stood out because he was the most polite, patient conversationally charitable person on. So when he made these really brutal points on the airwaves, it was a nice contrast.
Kucinich has come off as rude to many people who have met him in person. Dwayne Booth, from LA Weekly has an article called Dennis Kucinich has Five Minutes for You. It is anything but a puff piece.He comes off as impersonal and robotic.
None of this changes the fact that he was hands-down the best candidate in every way. I am glad he entered and was able to get his message out in the debates. I think he helped shift the "center" a little toward the center.
Ted-
It has been obvious for a while that you were an Edwards fan.
There is a lot that you miss in your analysis of him. Edwards is the right man in the wrong year. Young people do not understand his 1930's style populist rhetoric. Urban voters are afraid of anyone with a southern accent after GWB. His presentation always has a lawyerly quality to it, and he really didn't do much to rein in corporations when he was a Senator. Plus he is associated with John Kerry, a sore point for everyone.
I think he is a good guy, but part of the reason he has not received more coverage is him- he has not sparked any broad interest. The media is corporate, but it is also reactionary. If Edwards had won Iowa there would have been tons of coverage of his campaign. Obama got more coverage out of the gate because he was exotic to the news media, but he did not get nearly as much coverage as Hillary until he won Iowa.
The media always want to devote most of their coverage to the winner, and most people at this point know Edwards has no chance- not enough money, hamstrung by public financing, and third place in every poll.
The media gave very little coverage to Dodd or Biden as well, and not because they were "a threat to the corporate owned media". It is because the media covers whatever their polling says is popular. The corporate media mostly covers anything that sells, they don't care what flavor it is, or even if it is poisonous to themselves. The media is a whore- it will sleep with anyone that sells their papers.
If he had been the candidate in 2004 instead of Kerry, things might have ended quite differently. But he has no traction in 2008, and he is not going to be the candidate. Time to move on.
Ted,
Being the cynic you are, I expected more from you. How can you support Edwards? In private practice, he was the kind of lawyer that gives the legal profession a bad name.
He's using the decreasing access people in the U.S. have to education, health care, and blue collar employment as campaign planks. That's disgusting. He's made hundreds of millions of dollars profiting from one of the prime reasons those things are becoming unobtainable. As soon as some person or organization provides any of them, they inevitably get sued.
There are certainly justified lawsuits, but I don't think a lawyer gets to be as rich as Edwards by choosing his clients carefully. In just one of his specialties, medical malpractice, he put a lot of quacks on a lot of witness stands to bolster many questionable cases.
He may steal from the rich and give to the poor, but Edwards is no hero. Robin Hood did not work on contingency. He's just as much of a crook as any of the other candidates.
You're probably right, but I don't vote for the candidate who's most likely to win. I vote for the candidate whose views on the issues most closely correspond to mine.
Isn't that what everyone is supposed to do?
I have never understood this hatred of trial lawyers. If I ever have to go to court, for any reason, I want the smartest, toughest, slickest trial lawyer I can get on my side. But I won't be able to afford one unless it's on a contingency fee.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith JcH: He ain't Robin Hood, but he IS Little John.
Testify Jana!
As someone who went through two years of hell with three separate legal battles, I give a lot of credit to the laywers who helped me through that time.
The truth is, everyone thinks all lawsuits are frivolous, except when they're the ones who've been hurt.
I love when somebody complains about Edwards being a trial lawyer as an example of him having little compassion or of being somehow hypocritical. Give me a freaking break. Its always some asshole who doesn't know the first thing about Edwards that makes statements like this.
He got rich for representing a kid who had her guts sucked out by a pool drain that the company KNEW was defective. He won a case against a hospital that knowingly conducted surgeries in a theater that was infected with Staph. He won a case in which a hospital error (blood typing) caused a blood emergency in a child. He probably isn't robinhood but I cannot find a single case he was involved in that was frivolous and MOST of his income came from trials that occured as opposed to class action settlements.
I'm trapped in my bathroom right now. Fortunately, I have internet access in there. My foot is stuck in the toilet. This is a clear case of product liability.
Can John Edwards help me?
I'm the guy who was talking smack about Edwards about 3 posts ago. I'd like to clarify a few points.
1.) The 3 year old girl who got her guts sucked out is a very fishy story. It clearly did happen, but it would require that the kid was in fairly deep water. in order to build up that kind of pressure. What kind of parent lets their kid play unsupervised in the deep end? What if the kid had simply drowned do to lack of parental supervision? She'd be just as dead but it wouldn't make the news. Maybe John Edwards could sue the water company and heroically deprive the residents of South Carolina of potable water.
2.) I didn't say all of his cases were unfounded. To be fair, the last poster did pick some legitimate cases. Edwards's bread and butter case, however was obstetrical malpractice. He argued case after case that babies were stupid because the evil doctor screwed up. Sometimes he may well have been right, but he didn't let being wrong stop him. He kept finding quack expert witnesses to support his claims, even if the bulk of scientific evidence revealed them to be bogus. If I had to choose, I'd pick Mike Huckabee's war on science over John Edwards's. Huckabee's is kind of funny. Edwards's destroys people.
There is a whole mythology about 'phony' lawsuits and trial lawyers. Remember the "hot coffee lady"? Turns out that that Mc Donalds was warned about its hot water many times. The old woman received severe burns in her crotch area. But the brutish mythology became "a stupid old bitch burned herself and sued McDonalds".
There are many more examples, and there are reasons they exist. Reasons like John Stossel.
THhere are many HUGE problems in this country. I assure you they have nothing to do with little poeple screwing over corporations.
to quote stossel "gimme a break!"
"Edwards scares me, too. He's the first candidate I've ever admired."
Well I admire Howard Dean too. But then – hey – I'm from Vermont. Still smoldering at the procorporate Emanuel-Clinton Democrats and their 2004 swiftboat-style press manipulation.
angelo,
I don't watch John Stossel. My experience with frivolous lawsuits comes mostly from being employed by a good man who was put out of business by one. If you don't believe frivolous lawsuits exist, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Perhaps you believe that critics of Scientology or the Westboro Baptist Church deserve what they got. After all, how could they be sued unless they violated the rights of those organizations?
"Ask not what I can do for you; ask what you can do for me" – AKA Kennedy
Perhaps you believe that critics of Scientology or the Westboro Baptist Church deserve what they got. After all, how could they be sued unless they violated the rights of those organizations?
My legal studies have told me that until you have read the case, you have no idea what is happening. I would like to hear more about your employer, however.
It is just like anthing. There are good guys and bad guys.