In another slap at corporate power and greed, Edwards delivered his concession speech for having come in second to Barak Obama as a defiant challenge to the status quo corporatocracy which is depriving decent Americans of healthcare, jobs and their democracy. "The status quo lost and change won," Edwards told the Iowa crowd.
While Barack Obama may seem to some like JFK, because of his inspiring words of change and hope in a historic moment for the country, Edwards, in his rhetoric might be compared to Bobby Kennedy for the passion and anger he feels as he witnesses the problems caused by a grinding lack of needed reform, in a 'bought' system run by corporate-greed that relegates the majority of Americans to two-tiered economic and social inequality between haves and have-nots.
So you'd think Edwards would get kudos for finishing so unexpectedly well against the status-quo's darling, Hillary Clinton. If Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich had finished in second place like Edwards, I would be making the same point about them. Given the upset victory over Hillary Clinton, you'd think the media would at least report on it.
But nope. Not a word.
The media moguls are just sure Edwards will not make it out of January. And he may not because he doesn't have Obama or Clinton's $100 million campaign war chests that seem necessary for the waging of a national campaign.
What the corporate media don't like is that Edwards has a message of democratic populism: rewarding work, supporting sustained growth and full employment, providing universal health care, repairing ravaged pensions, calling for public investment and working for an end to poverty.
Edwards' campaign has put the central issue of our time center stage: Who controls our country--corporations or the people? He's the only candidate who says, fearlessly : "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." We haven't heard words like that in our campaigns in a while, at least not from anyone near top of the polls.
What Edwards brings that Obama and Clinton so far haven’t is a confrontational, fighting spirit to take back our government from corporate power, lobbyists and special interests. Obama and Clinton speak lots of populist fluff--and, yes, they’re more moderate in tone—but they both have avoided being specific and so far lack much detail or substance on the issues of economic fairness, justice for ALL and dignity for the lower classes. The only one of the top three finishers who has called the 'corpies' on their class warfare against the poor and middle class is, so far, John Edwards. I know others like Kucinich and Ron Paul have made similar points, but they are not achieving a significant portion of the vote, so far, but Edwards is.
The status quo is scared of John Edwards because he not only can drive that message home into the next primaries and election but he is not taking special interest money and he earned his way where he is from his roots as a poor boy. John Edwards could carry the 'solid South. That scares the GOP.
Now, that said: One day after the Iowa caucuses, something seems queer to me about the media coverage of the Iowa results. Has anyone else noticed that the “lamestream” news media, even in their very early hours of reporting, seemed to already act as if John Edwards no longer mattered at all?
What I see in the reporting so far is Edwards’s second place finish being 'dissed' by a deafening silence of coverage. It is as if Edwards were not even relevant and had lost big! If these media talking-heads mention Edwards at all, they lump him into the ‘loser’ category with Hillary in Iowa and then continue to treat Hillary and Obama as the two main players going forward into the next primaries. I noticed in the wee morning hours of Friday after the Iowa caucuses, for example, that ABC News had hardly mentioned Edwards at all, scarcely even once in a whole night of reporting on the results of the caucus. And when they did mention Edwards’ for just a nano-second, they dismissed him as a loser basically, now, out of the running.
If this is not an example of mainstream media bias, I don't know what is. The reporting has just simply glossed over what should be announced as an absolute shocker: John Edwards actually BEAT Hillary Clinton, who was expected to be a shoe-in.
That’s pretty impressive, even if Edwards didn't come in first.
All the corporate media shills can do is to repeat the mantra of Obama vs. Hillary, over and over, still framing everything in terms of a Clinton-Obama horse race.
Not one word about how well Edwards did, nor any consideration of how he might do in the future having come in so unexpectedly well ahead of the well-oiled Clinton money machine.