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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Speaks well indeed! Thanks for giving us a voice. Go Johnny Go!
Yes, John Edwards is a great candidate and the most progressive one with better laid out plans and policy positions than either Obama or Hillary but he needs to win something to stay in this race because he doesn't have enough money to compete for very long otherwise. And if he continues to stay in the race without being able to win anything, it will bring into question his judgment AGAIN.
He might have been the perfect candidate had he not helped ram through the Use of Force Authorization for the Iraq War in the Senate. While he has sufficiently apologized for this mistake, it's too little too late for me. I don't think the Dems can afford another "John Kerry" candidate who foolishly voted for the war before they became against it even though I am not certain this attack would be as effective now as it was in 2004.
RJ Crane
topplebush.com
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!
The MSM and their corporate owners/bosses, the Insurance "Industry", Big Pharma, the Lobbyist "Industry", oil companies and the rest of the greedy rich blood-suckers are doing everything in their power to stifle the message of REAL CHANGE spoken by John Edwards! Barack and Hillary have been FORCED to respond to John's message of accountability and change and modify their positions. Edwards plays a CRITICAL role in articulating who the TRUE enemies of average Americans......the Middle Class are.
It is infuriating that at the SAME time the New York Times gives a bully platform for one of the major mouthpieces for the war in Iraq, Bill Kristol (the PNAC chair!), they essentially blacklist the message of John Edwards! THAT is an unforgiveable failure & co-option by our nations "Fourth Estate"....it clearly gives the lie to the Neocon right wing BS claim of "the Liberal Media"!
John Edwards IS The Real Deal & TRUE Progressive, and will represent ALL Americans best; his policy and proposal SPECIFICS show that, IMO.
See for yourself;
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/govt-reform/
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/global-poverty/
The Dem standard bearer for The Middle-Class, Progressives, and in fact ALL Americans, should be John Edwards; he is the one who CAN WIN in '08 against ANY Repub/Con... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html ...and begin the healing, restoration of Honor, and the concept of NATIONHOOD for our country! If you've been befuddled and weaseled by the other candidates spin or "$400 haircut" jive, you should hear Edwards actual words; words his opponents and the MSM DON'T want you to read. If you haven't read a John Edwards speech in full, PLEASE read this one from Oct 29, 2007.
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/
Do we wanna win in '08 & BEYOND or screw it up...again?
EDWARDS/Obama '08! TWO Edwards terms then TWO Obama Terms! Barely enough time to repair the crimes & incompetence of the Bush/Cheney/Neocon Regime!
David, you've written the first comment on the election that's given me hope in days. For that I thank you, from a deeply discouraged voter who sees gender and race as fracturing the Democratic Party unnecessarily at this extremely perilous time. You'd think we'd had 8 years of a Gore Presidency the way that Obama and Clinton are acting--like we're not off track of the Constitution, with all government agencies destroyed. If Edwards acts angry, he's critized; if he smiles, he's critized as well (see above). Well count me as one voter who will ONLY vote for Edwards and who detests the pandering, triangulation, and downright conservatism of the media-aninted "front-runners"!
You are so right about the media blackout on Edwards. His message is not getting through - just more work for us grassroots organizers to do.
David Sirota is right. Edwards is the real candidate for change, which is precisely why the ruling class is so adamantly opposed to him.
Thanks David. After NH polls don't seem to mean much but you're right about Edwards. If he was getting anything close to the media coverage Obama & Hillary are getting this would be a very different race. Of course you could say that about Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson and Biden too.
Wow!
Thank you for reminding us that all options are still on the table. People thinking tends to narrow after two small, unrepresentative states have voted - Iowa and New Hampshire. But on super Tuesday there is no reason why a candidate who did not win (Edwards), or did extremely poorly (Kucinich) in both of these states couldn't take the ballgame. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the media driven hype about supposed front runners and the American voter that votes for a "frontrunner" (i.e. the candidate farmers in Iowa picked), to avoid "throwing their vote away".
It would serve the Democrats if Edwards, who appears to be the one to initiate every important policy idea in this campaign, to think stragegically as we vote in our respective primaries to keep the other two from falling into the reactionary, regressive trap of falling for the idea that centrism is liberal and forget progressivism and the connection of class to the problems of race, gender, and sexual orientation. The nation has to the tragedy of state and world been listing starboard for decades, and it's up to the electorate, precisely the progressive electorate, to port the ship.
Well, Edwards needs to do something quick, then, because he has not been competitive, yet, where it matters--the actual caucusers/voters. Yes, his voice speaks of the most progressive policies, and eloquently of the exact changes we need to reclaim a disappearing democracy, but his goofy smiles make him look unserious and lightweight. I wish he'd just quit smiling and do battle--maybe the people would see his passion for reform and support him.
Every time he flashes that grin I cringe, knowing he's just lost another vote. We don't need another smiling poster boy, we need a serious adult willing to make very, very hard choices and fight very difficult battles with determined, well-funded adversaries. That smile suggests the weakness of a need to please and be loved, not that of a warrior ready for the fight of his life, regardless of his actual gravitas.
(Kucinich's, too--had he lost the goofy grin that he'd flash after each outrageously true comment, he'd have been taken seriously by a lot more people.)
Need I remind everyone that Nevada is a state that gets much of its revenue from machines that are "rigged" to keep the players from winning?
I am going to vote for Edwards in the CA primary.
If he is not on the Democratic ticket I will likely vote for a third party candidate regardless of their chances of being elected.
My choice is based on what I think the candidates will do once in office. I consider a vote for a third party candidate to be a protest vote - just one of my rights as a voter.
Spot on, as usual. It's a crime Edwards isn't getting more air time.
Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.
Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.
Everything else is just BUNK !
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
