For the Blowhards Who Insist It's a Two-Way Race...

For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Reno Gazette-Journal. Yup, that's right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix.

Interestingly, this poll comes right on the heels of the Establishment viciously ratcheting up its angry attacks on the Edwards candidacy. Late last week, we saw a Reuters story headlined "Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards" detailing how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption. We also saw self-anointed Democratic "expert" Lawrence O'Donnell pen a fulminating screed demanding Edwards get out of the race - not surprising coming from a man who made his name running the U.S. Senate Finance Committee - long the most corrupt, lobbyist-ravaged panel in all of Washington (somehow, running the U.S. Congress's version of a pay-to-play casino now makes people credible "experts" in campaign strategy and political morality).

According to the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, Edwards has long faced a media blackout - one that at least some honest media brokers like Keith Olbermann have noted. As I said a long time ago, that Edwards has even been able to compete in such a hostile environment is a testament to the power of his message.

The question we should ask is what the hostility and media blackout is really all about? I'd say the media's behavior is motivated by the same impulses that moves lobbyists to whine and cry to Reuters and self-important bloviators like O'Donnell to publicly burst a blood vessel on the Huffington Post - the people who have gotten used to the status quo are truly terrified by any candidates who they really believe will change things and threaten their power and status. Edwards is just such a candidate - one who threatens to muck up what the media and political elite want to be a race between two "nonthreatening," Wall Street-approved candidates. Obviously, it's a three-way race at this very moment - whether the Establishment likes that or not.

Let me conclude by saying I have no idea if the Gazette-Journal poll is accurate and/or whether Edwards will win Nevada (or any other state). Unlike most reporters, I don't spend my time covering the horse race, nor judging the candidates' viability only on the grounds of how much corporate cash they've been able to vacuum in. I spend my time trying to figure out which of these candidates represent the most fundamental form of change. One of the ways to judge that is to see who these candidates make uncomfortable. And by that measure, here's what I know: Edwards is generating hostility from precisely the kinds of people who are likely to be most averse to real, systemic change. And that speaks very well for the former senator from North Carolina.

Comments

[OhPlease2007]

David, remember when Hillary framed herself as a 'progressive democrat' at the beginning of the election? When she took the lead in polls, why did she stop calling herself a, 'progressive democrat?'

I think I know the answer, but since you are, by far, a better writer, I would appreciate your response on this. Thank you. :)

[TakeActionNow]

Fantastic column !!
Edwards would be a wonderful President.
The strength of our media truly frightens me. (Read George Orwell's "1984")
The greater diversity of news options available to us, the better. It takes more effort to find real news yet our county's future depends on it. More power to 'the People', not corporate America.

[CatfishJohn]

...just in the past few days, edwards has been dersively referreed to by major pundits in their syndicated editorial essays as "hugo chavez in english", a "pitchfork populist" an "fdr wannabe". all derisive, all dismissive...the unfortunate reality is that media is willfully dumbing down this race into a jr. high class president personality contest..the idea of substantive issues being discussed is out of their vacuous domain..recent study showed majority of dems favorign edawrds positions when presented side by side with clinton and obama. yetedwards remains effectively muzzled indeed bya corporate media fully intending to keep his effort to return america to a truly progressive agneda after 40 years of post -lbj creeping plutocracy out of any form of consideration. instead we get an utterly vapid "people magazine " election by willful design of the ever dumbing 'em down corporate media....a nation of dumbed down, ahistorical and sahllow consumers is they way the corporate media wants it-and is designing it....

[tbone99]

Obviously the media Love the race & gender angle like this lurid headline from MSNBC earlier.

"Racism or sexism - which is more taboo?"
in reference to BO and HC.
Everybody can get pissed off - its the Rush Limbaugh show 24/7

Facing the issues of economic injustice and its sad legacies of homelessness, evictions,layoffs and ongoing corporate malfeasance just doesn't sell papers(radios,tvs or ads).

Thank you John Edwards for addressing the real issues.

[Tellmethetruth]

My apologies to those who have seen this before, but I know Edwards bloggers can think independently.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2000
Business donated $1,228,476,385 of which Democrats got $513,445,271 and Republicans got $705,068,823 Labor gave $90,187,531
The Grand Total donated for 2000 elections was$1,633,534,367 Democrates spent $722,594,512 Republicans spent $895,338,890

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2004

Business Corporations donations $1,510,293,157 Democrats received $672,278,568 and Republicans received $832,497,466
Labor gave $61,702,483
$Grand Total spent for 2004 elections $2,031,675,877 of which Democrats spent $968,131,070 Republicans spent $1,055,173,534

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2006
2006 Election:
Business donations total $1,133,433,773 of which Democrats got $491,114,294 Republicans got $625,787,189
Labor $66,670,698
Grand Total spent in 2006: $1,580,110,253 Democrats spent $737,487,617 Republicans spent $818,599,117

Bottom line: 2004 Election cost $2billion to elect a President. Most of that money raised went to the Main Stream Media - They have turned our elections into a major business in which money changes hand from one pocket to the next.

Democracy is a commodity, bought and sold on the free market with our tax dollars and our votes.

Please note: Labor which represents 92% of Americans who get a W-2 in the mail, only was able to contribute about 3 to 4% of total money spent to elect the President and Congress. Why - because only about 16% of Americans are unionized due to union busting in the past 30 years by Republicans.

[CyberCitizen]

Just remembered this exchange on CNN between Wolf Blitzer and Karl Rove, commented on and posted by cupojoe back on December 02, 2007:

WOLF: So what you're saying is that none of the Democratic candidates are actually real, just holograms.

ROVE: Absolutely, and my sources on that are impeccable. I've certainly never met any of these so-called "candidates", and frankly everything we know about them is shrouded in a cloud of mystery.

WOLF: So how do you account for the fact that I've had many of them on my show?

ROVE: Well, Wolf, I'm sure whatever drugs you're taking will make you believe that, but I happen to know otherwise.

WOLF: Thank you, Karl Rove, former political advisor to President Bush. Next, two hours of debate: If the Democratic candidates don't exist, how will that affect their campaigns?

[Nutcase]

Why the MSM is favoring corporate-owned candidates is no great mystery. The MSM is also corporate-owned.

To understand to what lengths the corporate elite is willing to go, check out their campaigns against William Jennings Bryan. They even threatened their employees that they would all lose their jobs if Bryan was elected.

[zagyzebra]

I am SO in favor of Edwards and have been singing his praise to everyone I can. The problem is, the media beacons are pointed almost exclusively at Hillary and Obama, when the best candidate of the three is almost ignored. Maybe a letter writing campaign to city editors is in order to urge equal coverage of all three candidates.

[LoveOverGold]

The fact that the corporate owned/controlled media can influence our election process is exactly why we need REAL change, exactly what John Edwards says he wil do. I really hated what they did to Howard Dean, and I'm not a bit surprised they're doing it to Edwards. Not as blatant, be he has been virtually ignored. Edwards stands for what I need and my family needs. It's been too little for too long from the staus quo. Time for them to go!
Edwards '08!

[olephart]

David Sirota was quoted today as saying:

"the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton"

Wolf, this seems to confirm our CNN polls that the nominating process has boiled down to a two horse race. The American people just aren't buying into the left wing message of the Democratic Party. They are instead concentrating on electable candidates whose positions they clearly identify with.

Thank you Bill Schneider for you always on target analysis. CNN, the best political team, the best name in Politics.

[HearNoWeasel]

Here's a way to ask all candidates to PROVE that they mean it when they call for CHANGE: Ask them to actively support the following NOW...

* Dodd filibuster against telecom immunity
* Stop war funding
* Wexler's impeachment drive
* Rep. John Conyers' single-payer non-profit health plan

Let's ask them to SHOW us that they will stand up for change, against the establishment:
http://www.democrats.com/change-now-petition

[milo9]

I have been donating money to Edwards, win or lose, every time he makes a concession speech his message slips out. It's money well spent.

[texanna]

Thank you, David, for your great post. I have been leaning towards Edwards ever since he his campaign based on taking our country back from the monied and corporatist interests that have control of it. I too think everyone should take a really close look at the candidates that are getting the cold shoulder from the media or are generating hysterical reactions precisely for the same reasons you lay out -- they are probably the candidates that are bothering them the most and therefore the candidates that probably are going to get done what I want to get done. Obama's message is all well and good if we had a condition of any kind of reason on the part of the Republican Party, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican Party as it is right now is not interested in compromising with anybody. They don't want to give up one little bit of the money and power they currently have.

[MrsHaskell]

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the MSM/COM does not have the best interests of Democrats at heart. From the time the urged Clinton to resign over a lie about a bj, to their complicity in the 2000 coup and their admonitions after the 2006 elections, that Democrats had to hew to the "center", and all the transgressions in between, they have always, always, always worked to undermine us. If they say "up", we should, by now, automatically think know "down".

In a way we're lucky that the media have revealed themselves to be such patently dishonest brokers. Their shameful non-coverage of Edwards's campaign is of a piece with all of their other misdeeds. The question for Democrats is why are so many of us supporting candidates they applaud (Obama, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary) and rejecting Edwards, the candidate whom they so obviously fear?

And don't kid yourself that YOUR candidate is so awesome that s/he appeals to both the good guys AND the bad guys. What evidence is there that they've changed their ways? Wake up and smell the fix. Then run, don't walk, to support John Edwards.

[LeoMarvin]

I have two words for you:

1. Ned

2. Lamont