Tags for This Article:

Media (2714)  Democracy (1622)  Justice (1097)  Corporations (751)  Economic (671)  Future (590)  Poverty (510)  Reform (450)  Work (347)  Greed (328)  Work (321)  Edwards John (263)  Message (219)  Healthcare (161)  Caucus (137) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
January 4, 2008 at 22:14:17

DEAFENING CORPORATE-MEDIA SILENCE ON EDWARDS GOOD SHOWING IN IOWA IS A DIRECT STAB AT EDWARDS' POPULISM.

by JOHN LORENZ     Page 2 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

The reason seems obvious to me: Obama hasn't had an anti-corporate message and thus, the corporation-king-makers are thrilled if Obama wins. Conversely, the ‘corpies’ hope Edwards won’t even make it out of January, and with the heavy media silence surrounding Edwards, he may not. He doesn't have Obama or Clinton's $100 million campaign war chests with which to wage a national campaign. And if the media uses its clout to 'shut out' candidates it doesn't like, such as Kucinich, Edwards and Ron Paul (cf ABC shutting Kucinich out of the Democratic debate) then that can severely distort the public's knowledge of the candidates and limit public debate of important issues. The candidacy for the presidency has turned into a private club for only the richest and most well-heeled and the news media trivializes the real issues by converting the election process into a pseudo-sporting event, making the candidates' appearances conform to a personality-celebrity cult rather than a free exchange of needed ideas on how to fix the problems of the country.

What Edwards does have is a message of much-needed populism: stopping the excessive influence of corporate business in government decision making, returning the power of decision to the American people and taking it away from the corrupt crony-power-brokers. 

He wants to protect American jobs, give the lower classes back a more levelled playing field and a decent quality of life and supporting progressive growth and employment strategies and removing roadblocks to long-need but delayed reforms such as a living wage and universal health care and rebuilding of the country's infrastructure. 

Edwards may not score top in the polls, but he has 

framed the fight that the American people will HAVE to wage if they are to wrest control of their lives and their country from reactionary oligarchs. He's the only one of the top percentage point candidates who asks this. And his helping Obama in the latest debate shows that he means what he says about his dislike of the old guard, status-quo represented by Hillary Clinton. 

We haven't heard populism in American campaigns in a long, long time, and after George W. Bush, America NEEDS a heavy dose of 'power to the people." 

Make no mistake:  the mega-greed-oligarchy and their job-stealing corporations have anointed themselves to be  slave-masters; and in so doing, have arrogated to themselves the role of  ‘king-makers’. Hillary Clinton has a sense of 'entitlement' about her supposed accession to the presidency based on her having been a part of the status quo.   She gets mad when she's called on it.

Obama is a quick thinker, and, I believe he wants reform too. But he does take more lobbyist money than Edwards does. The corporate media so far has treated Obama like their golden rock star. They want to do business with an Obama candidacy. He has an appealing image, he's young, he's a good orator;  but so far, not much concrete substance on the issues.

The lobbyists and corporate power-brokers hate Edwards (and by extension, Kucinich and Paul for bearing a similar message to that of Edwards) because he has called these thieves of the American dream out on their greed and their high-handed usurping of government.  The main media outlets for broadcast ‘news’ are climbing aboard the corporate-hand-picked Obama/Clinton prize fight bandwagon.

Their 'dissing' of John Edwards cannot be any clearer. He really means what he says and they want him OUT.

 1  |  2

 

I am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 comments

It is never the masses that make the difference, it is always the individual which makes the difference. Thank you for letting me be myself today.
Jeanette DoneyIt is never the masses that make the difference, it is always the individual which makes the difference. Thank you for letting me be myself today.

Where's Edwards on Medical cannabis

That is what is sustaining NoCAL economically.  $1.2 billion in Mendo alone.  Edwards going to continue this war on drugs?  Edwards going to give universal healthcare to all (who do what the feds consider llegal drugs?)  And why hasn't Edwards said, "I will recind the power Bush took for himself and the Patriot Act?" 

I think Edwards got a good show w/MSM by comparison to Ron paul and Kucinich.  Nader endosed him, Moore in a way endorsed him, a number of writers came out strong for Edwards.  I wouldn't vote for Edwards, and I think the MSM has left Edwards out of the Hillary Obama muck, so he's under the crap radar and floating into New hampshire on a win over Hillary.  As one who would love to see Ron Paul debate Edwards, I think MSM is doing Edwards a favor...I'd like to know why.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments) on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 9:04:49 AM
 


An amateur political analyst
Jeff WinchellAn amateur political analyst

Edwards vs. Kucinich and Paul

Edwards poll numbers are so much higher than Paul (at the moment) and Kucinich, that complaining about his coverage being too much is absurd. Either all three should be getting more coverage, or Obama/Clinton should be getting less, based soley on poll numbers.

Based on ideas, well that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

BTW, I've contributed to both Edwards and Paul campaigns. I'd probably throw a few bucks Kucinich and Gravel's way too, but I'm poor.

by Jeff Winchell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 6:02:31 PM
 


I am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.
JOHN LORENZI am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.

No, it's not absurd

I like Kucinich and yes, Paul too, but Edwards is the only one with enough behind him to have a shot at winning. I'm not saying that is how it should be, but this system is rigged. I agree that Kucinich and Paul have been shortchanged, but that is no reason to diss my point about Edwards's second place finish even ahead of Hillary being remarkable and it should have received more press coverage.

I made the point that given the high place that Edwards finished in the caucusing, he should get more press coverage. Please don't denigrate a good point I'm making.

by JOHN LORENZ (11 articles, 20 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 9:09:18 PM
 


I am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.
JOHN LORENZI am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.

Edwards could easily debate Ron Paul. Easily!

Edwards isn't getting any 'free pass.' and he could easily debate Ron Paul. Paul has weaknesses in his libertarian stuff about disassembling Federal oversight of programs. That's looney-tunes and would just hand over more power to the oligarchy that is strangling us now. Paul says a few good things about withdrawing foreign adventurism and about returning to Constitutional government (that is a good question about what he means exactly by that: constitutional is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. And Ron Paul hasn't laid out any plan on divesting the mega-rich corpies from their stranglehold on the rest of us. Edwards has more specifics, having been a corporation fighting lawyer his whole life. Edwards is every bit the equal of Ron Paul in honesty, in ideas and he is  superior in his more rational view of specific help to the poor and the middle class. Paul doesn't say what he'd do to protect the vulnerable: I suspect, being a libertarian, he'd do NOTHING to protect those at the bottom who need protecting from the predatory upper class robber barons. His attitude is akin to that of Herbert Hoover: let the rich do what they want. No controls, no oversight, no regulation. That is a bunch of poppycock and anyone who has a brain knows it.

by JOHN LORENZ (11 articles, 20 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 49 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 1:38:08 PM
 


An amateur political analyst
Jeff WinchellAn amateur political analyst

He is in favor of science over politics

He specifically answered your question on the Technorati's 10Questions website. Here's his answer (youtube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiNdGQVewqY

Obama answer the same question, I think also to your liking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejErbwiDBaA

Naturally, Clinton didn't answer any of the 10 questions.

by Jeff Winchell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 5:59:28 PM
 


I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. 
Ty ShlackmanI'm supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. 

Edwards

Edwards is a fraud who's involved with a Wall Street hedge fund Fortress Investment Company. The only candidates truly being marginalized are the ones excluded from the debates.

 

by Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM
 

 

7 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

 

 

 

 

Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder
by Linda Milazzo

A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States
by Anonymous

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
by David Swanson

Fortis Prediction of US Bank Meltdown a Net Hoax: The Making of an Urban Legend
by Paul Haughey

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate
by elliot cohen

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GAS REACHES 7 DOLLARS A GALLON ?
by Allen L Roland

Why were 'first responders' de-contaminated at the Pentagon?
by Len Hart

Ex Weapons Inspector: Iran Not Pursuing Nukes, But U.S. Will Attack Before '09
by Jason Leopold

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller

Free Energy and the Open Source Energy Movement
by jibbguy