What's Next: John Edwards

re: What's Next: John Edwards

bme5628 — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:45:34 GMT

Oh What do you know.....Iowa and New Hampshire do NOT speak for the rest of the country, and you surely don't speak for me. John Edwards is the best qualified, and I for one am glad that he's not given up.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

youravgjoe — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:00:36 GMT

This race is far from over. John Edwards will rebound by Super Tuesday.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

TheKiddy3 — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:03:29 GMT

there has been little or no media coverage anyway and tonight last night Keith and Chris may have mentioned John's name once/twice. I would like to know the raw #s of people that voted for John vs. voted for McCain and Guiliani and Romney and Huckabee who are considered totally in the running by MSNBC and all the media.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

lzeski — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:14:05 GMT

I agree. What do you know . That is only 2 states!! Why don't you give him some fair

media coverage and let the country decide.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

DenverDem — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:42:53 GMT

Absolutely on bme5628 and youravgioe. The media organizations and the corporations that own them spin this to get the candidates they want, and the ones the Repubs think they can defeat.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

pattyjean — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:13:32 GMT

The media has been focusing on Clinton and Obama and very little coverage of Edwards at all. They blocked him out long ago and put all the focus on the other two. It's been totally unfair, and I am still putting my vote on Edwards.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

munchkin1 — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:21:13 GMT

I agree with all the comments made this far. Iowa and N.H. do not speak for me or most people I know in this regard. We are all Edwards fans (even some of my repub friends would vote for Edwards). The media only covers who they want to win. Who's buying them off?

re: What's Next: John Edwards

mustang1989 — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:47:47 GMT

I cain't agree more! All we have heard is Clinton, Obama for months. Finally someone stands up for average Americans and takes on the special interests and all the money they have behind them. The media in this country pays little attention to Edwards and instead follows the big money and most interesting "story" that they themselves create. When will Americans wake up and reject the establishment that is shoved down our throats by the media and those already in power? I'm supporting Edwards and will do whatever I can to promote his message and hope that someone will listen.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

EqualCoverage — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:21:01 GMT

This article shows how the new media controls the message instead of delivering the message which is suppose to be their job. First, two out of 50 states do not speak for all of America. These states are certainly not as ethnically diverse as many of the states who have not had their primaries yet are. Second, Edwards has not gotten his EQUAL TIME, which used to be a requirement of all news media until (I believe it was) the Reagan administration who abolished those requirements. Third, this shows the importance of publicly funded elections where money is not the objective or requirement to be A) Covered by the "news" media (e.g. highest fund raisers get covered and everyone else is forgotten) and B) Required to buy enough Ads, etc. to be heard. I think if every candidate were on an equal footing financially the outcomes of the Caucus and Primary may well have been different. After all, Obama out spent Edwards in Iowa nearly 3 to 1. Now is he really the candidate people want the most or is he just the one who's name they remember the best because they have scene it everywhere?

re: What's Next: John Edwards

EqualCoverage — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:32:01 GMT

Another thing: The audacity of the statement "nation's attention is focused squarely on the two celebrity candidates at the top of the polls" ... The nation's attention? No it's the Media Attention, because the Media doesn't know how to give everyone equal coverage. The media has forgotten how to do actual reporting any more and only knows how to report their opinion -- which used to be taboo. The downfall of or news is the downfall of our democracy. If we can get real news coverage back then perhaps we'll have a chance at getting our democracy back.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

indygirl — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:07:44 GMT

I am so happy to see these comments about Edwards!! He certainly has my vote. Many of my Republican friends say that they will vote for him too. He is the only true leader out of the bunch!! This country needs John Edwards and they will support him if they ever get to hear his message. I don't have a lot of money but I will give whatever I can to his campaign. GO JOHN!!! (love you too Elizabeth)

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Ipick winners — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:09:56 GMT

I think that John Edwards will show you why I and many other people support his bid. His stick to additude will show thevoters he's going to be there in November. I don't know how you can say its all over for him after this strong showing. I think its your lack of experiance thats in the way here. Hell kid I got a pair of cowboy boots older than you are

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Im4edwards — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:20:33 GMT

I agree with all comments! Give Edwards some media coverage!!! He will get my vote, and I hope he hangs in there!!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

markp-r — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:34:55 GMT

When I hear John speak, I feel confident he is speaking from the heart and means every word he's saying. In fact, his passion in his oratory is so good that Hillary decides to use a lot of it. I noticed in her "tear" moment, she talked of having the passion for the job and that it's "personal" to her. Those are the same words that John has been saying for months. Now, she chooses to use them in a calculated (staged for effect) way. Wake up America... see who is trying to fool you and will say anything. Then take another look at John Edwards, and see the man who can truly make the changes we need in Washington. Good Luck John, I'm rooting for you!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

777EdwardsBest777 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:59:54 GMT

Yes, I also share the view that Edwards thus far hasn't received enough exposure by the national media. Clinton and Obama have raised huge sums of money (I wonder from whom?) and have been given the celebrity treatment for months now. While the fact that a woman or black man could become our next president is certainly historic, I don't think people should vote for or against someone on that basis. While I'm open to supporting either Clinton or Obama, they just don't come as close as Edwards in my view in terms of their positions on the issues. They also seem somewhat inauthentic (especially Clinton) and too much like typical poll and focus group driven politicians. I'm very cynical about politics nowadays, but it seems to me that Edwards is making statements that go right to the core issues that need addressing - corporate power, poverty, the environment, an enlightened foreign policy, etc. It's up to the public to make their politicians better BEFORE they hold public office and to hold their feet to the fire once they're there. Of the frontrunners, only Edwards has taken the most principled positions (which the others are now copying) and can explain why he's running better than any of them. I hope his voice of clarity, reason, compassion and idealism has a better chance of being heard going forward, and that ultimately he wins the nomination and becomes our next president. What a great way it would be to end the nightmare of the Bush years!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

twinkletoes2 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:35:13 GMT

Less than 2% of the nation has voted, so I pray Mr. Edwards does not throw in the towel just yet.

He is my chioce, He is the original voice of change, the original sincere candidate who can relate to the middle class. The slap in the face he has gotten from Mr. Kerry should show the country Mr Edwards is truly a gentleman by his diplomatic response. Besides I am not so sure an endorsement by Mr Kerry will not work against Mr. Obama. Mr Edwards has experience, new ideas, intelligence, contacts, and more of a following than you can guess.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

4edwords08 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:41:48 GMT

I don't see that this article proves true. Why is there still coverage of all of the Republican candidates (or almost all.save Ron Paul).

I believe that Biden & Dodd were forced to get out by the Clinton machine since they were the true experience candidates with actual true and proven leadership in Congress. Richardson now drops out, is it money,or a possible Senatorial bid? I don't know, all I know is that if it was Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Kucinich just as it is Romney,McCain,Huckabee,Giuliani and even Thompson is till being talked about, No one would be ruling Edwards out. Edwards has placed in the top 3 twice, had great debates, great crowds, 30 million, money raised by individuals not pacs or lobbyies and Chris Matthews can only gush about Obama and Clinton, I don't get this ..is it that the Edwards campaign won't be paying as much for air time and therefore not as much profit making by parent company? Explain it to me Mr. Romano

re: What's Next: John Edwards

KarenSantaFe — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:14:27 GMT

A LOT can happen between now and tsunami Tuesday or whatever you guys have now branded it to be. John Edwards is a terrific, still-viable candidate, and I do NOT appreciate the media voting him out of the race by denying him the media coverage he so clearly deserves. I think there may be laws against blocking a legit candidate from legit coverage -- campaign manipulation? I expected better from you guys.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

lilbluebird — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:38:42 GMT

well this is far from over. Only two states have voted . If we are going to base the winner on just two states why bother voting at all. Edwards has alot of fight in in him and this is far from over . It shouldnt be about race and gender but about the issues,. At least Edwards is honest and fighting for the middle class. He took second in Iowa which is a big state. Its not over yet.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

votescount — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:28:01 GMT

The polls in NH show that the media is trying to drive this election their way. We still have a vote Mr Ramano. The voters will decide to elect the most viable and forthright candidate. As far as I'm concerned this is John Edwards. He was the only positive candidate of 2004 and now in 2008. GO JOHN!!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

ThinkPatrick — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:38:17 GMT

I keep asking people what they think about the Democratic candidates - regardless of whether or not they feel they will vote Democratic, Republican, Independent, Green Party, etc.

What I keep finding is that when Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are matched up, I get something that looks a bit like this when their individual considering strengths and weakensses on every matter :

Obama: A C A C C C A

Clinton C A C A C A C

Edwards A B A B A B A

Time and time again, I find that essentially everyone that has an interest in Clinton or Obama ultimately comes back to Edwards as their #2 choice, and happily talks about Edwards strengths as a candidate as well.

When I look at the table I created above, good reason suggests that across the board, Edwards would probably make the very best president because he does better in all areas combined than do the other candidates.

I don't believe in voting "the lessor of two evils" ... only in the best candidate for all reasons.

John Edwards will have my vote.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Scorpius — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:17:26 GMT

I find this type of reporting very irressponsible! I have watched time and time againand in recent years flagrant. The media trying to control the elections. It,s quite apparent after Reagan relaxed the monoply rules in the 80,s allowing media outlets to be bought up by individuals and special interest groups. They now or just telling us who is the candidate rather then reporting on it the are trying to control it! This election has been a joke from the beginning!The Republicans were the ones who put Hillary in this race! The have been telling everyone for the last three years that Hillary is going to be the candidate for the Dem's! The spent a fortune in air time promoting her! Like the idiots that the Dem's have proven to be over the last decade they fell for it and put her in the election as their front runner!The Republicans plan worked! Why would they do this? It,s quite simple, they knew they were going to have a hell of a time getting re-elected afyer Bush! So they needed a candidate that they knew they could beat! Ta Da ! Hillary The right wing is so polarised in their hate for her that come the national election they will come out in droves to vote against her! As we all know the red states have the advantage and #,s in the electorial college! So It does not even matter who the Republicans nominate. Who ever runs against Hillary will win by default!

As far as Obama is concerned, yes it was nice to see him participate and do so well, but he to is un-electable! He will not be able to carry the southern states which is crucial to winning the national election! He will when new-York and california maybe one are two others in the National election and that is it! The Republicans know this, Hillary and Obama are a win win situation for them! But as the the Dem's who like to feel that they are these intelligent independent thinkers are so easily lead around by their noses! They dance like puppets to the Republican spin game!

So the only candidate that can win a national election if you crunch the numbers is Edwards! It does not matter if you like the facts! They are what they are! So if you are a Democrat and you do not want to see another Republican in office you nned to start thinking with your brains and not your hearts! Once again people need to wake up and realise that in todays world the news being reported is not the news of their fathers! There are no crusading young journalist out there following their sacred oath of reporting the just the facts without influence so you the american public can make your own decision! We now live in a era of Fox news ! How they can call themselves a news channel is unconsionable! They are a pure propaganda station and there are a part of amajor media conglomerate including the wallstreet Journal and several other Big newspaper and medai outlets controlled by one man! Who has one goal to crush the middle class and return this country back to before world war two!When the rich ruled without conscions and no controlls on there deviant behavior!They want the public returned to the poor uneducated masses of the past! Today that five percent only controls 85% of the country,s wealth! They feel that for them to compete with the wealth of the new emerging global powers which they created through their own selfish greed in the first place! That they need to return to pre- WW2 were thecontrolled 95% of the contrys wealth! If people would actually read what these guys write instead of the bullshit headlines that they controll they would see that they are not even bothering to hide their intentions! Why do you think they allow the bordsers to be open for immagartion non-stop even though all they do is talk about closing the borders but yet the are the party of amnisty!

Stop listening to jerks like the guy who wrote this! Who obviously has no journalistic integrity! Your free press no longer exist thanks to Reagan! Just a few individiuals and special interst groups control it! Why do you thinl that all you see any more are these hot model women reporting the news! They are not journalist. They just read the telepromter, they do not go out and get the story the just say what they are told! Why do you think half of the time they cannot even pronounce the name of the country much less the indiviuals name!!!

All I can say is if America does not wake up and start paying attencion to what is going on behind the headline , you can kiss your countrys ass goodbye! Your fore-fathers would be ashamed of us all!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

heliz57 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:24:13 GMT

Clinton and Obama are celebrities because the media made them celebrities. People become famous through media exposure, constant, droning, in your face, beating you over the head, Paris Hilton until you want to vomit exposure. It's kind of amazing. You don't care about a story, you actively try to avoid a story, but eventually it seeps into your brain and you actually know the names of Angelina Jolie's children or that Nicole Richie is pregnant. You were just trying to get your news, but you've been sucked into the insipid brainless freakshow that is now America's media. And the medis has the gall to say things like "Well, this is what the people obviously want because this is what they buy." Have you looked around lately? Explored your important newspapers and (ahem) news magazines? Watched the news? Watched news channels? They are all the same. They are interchangeable.

The media could have done things very differently with their coverage of John Edwards. They didn't. They wanted the quick junkie fix of easy stories to shoot into their veins (woman candidate.... clinton presidency.... african american...ahhh.......). I can't begin to describe the frustration that has been engendered in me and my fellow Edwards supporters from the total disregard that the media has shown for us and our candidate. What the meda fails to understand is that this is not simply about underexposure of a candidate. We feel as if you have stripped us of our voices and told us that we don't matter. Or even worse, that we don't exist. I'm sickened.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

blueinaredstate — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:32:38 GMT

It is so frustrating when large numbers of my friends and family say that they like Edwards more than any other candidate, but don't want to waste their vote on him when he has no chance to win. It is just wrong that the media found what is admittedly a great story (Woman vs. African American--both very qualified) and then ignored the candidate that could probably win a general election. My Republican friends like him as much as my Democratic friends, but none of us will likely ever have the opportunity to vote for him - -shame on the media for making a viable candidate seem irrelevant.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

BernieHund — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:21:37 GMT

If people would take the time to do some research on the issues, they would notice that John Edwards was first on most issues, putting out his plans before Obama and Clinton proposed similar plans. The Democratic Party is flush with great candidates. But, the best use of resources would be to elect Edwards to the presidency. Clinton is working well in a bipartisan manner in the Senate. Obama could well serve as VP. Biden would make a wonderful Sec. of State. Richardson would be terrific at the UN. Dodd should be put in a position relative to banking and finace with his experience. And, Kucinich should be appointed to a cabinet post such as the Dept. of Peace. John Edwards is best qualified to lead the country. There is nothing divisive about his candidacy from the people's point of view. He would take the fight to the corporations who are buying or stealing America from the average person. Hopefully, his message will get out to everyone in time for him to wrap up the nomination. He is truly the candidate who can unite us.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

ccflewallen — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:41:32 GMT

I wonder if these media outlets and news stations would be willing to admit that they are more concerned with ratings and bank accounts than what is best for the country. They all want to be part of "history". That is, seeing the first woman or african american american president. Thats very dangerous. How many republicans do you suspect will vote for either of these candidates when they step into their little poll booth in November. I think we better start taking a look at the poll that tells us who would actually have a chance against a republican, and stop being so caught up in wanting to be a part of "history", because it will all come to naught in November and will in fact be history, with another republican president.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

CrazyAboutYou — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:48:56 GMT

I think America is ready for real journalism and less reality show style coverage of Clinton and Obama and more grown up coverage of what is important. I think John Edwards is our best bet in 2008, he is in it for the people not the show to the people. I would like to see the media give us a little more to chew on than this superficial media coverage of embarasing coverage of these debates that look like bar brawl. I was leaning for Clinton and unsure about Obama, and after the last coverage of the debate I was embarazed to even consider them at all. John Edwards has the experience, an the all American good honest look of a president. I think he can bring peace to this world without his personal agenda and celebrity status that the others bring to the table. Lets be fair and have the media do real journalism.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Proud Alabama Democrat — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:57:29 GMT

We want John Edwards to be our next Vice President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Whether it is Clinton or Obama, John Edwards is the best canditate to be VP. Pass the word. Thank you.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Proud Alabama Democrat — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:18:38 GMT

Clinton/Edwards 2008........doesn't that sound like a dream come true. Call me naive, but I just can't believe that Bush/Cheney could ruin America, the way that they have and get away with it. They have all but done away with the middle class, that is the backbone of this nation. I have never seen such arrogance and greed (do you think they are both narcisstic sociopaths?) since Leona Helmsley. By the way, Democrats take care of others, not just themselves, which is so much more like Jesus.....The Republican based Christian Coalition is such a joke.....Greed is a sin. Also, I pray that our candidates stop outsourcing and send the Mexicans back, we might can help Mexico at some point, but we have got to fix America first. Discipline in schools has got to be put back into effect, also. No child left behind was a joke as well, they is so much more to learning than just scoring well on a test. Oh, what has happened to our America......Mayberry where are you!!!!!!!!!!!

re: What's Next: John Edwards

flyp — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:34:44 GMT

You all need to wake up and smell the flowers. Edwards campaign did not take off. He failed to win his natal state. He certainly does not have the qualifications to be the chief executive. The people have spoken-they said no to Edwards-not once-but twice. (04)

Everyone is free to write him in. You can blame the press-the truth is Edwards did not ignit

re: What's Next: John Edwards

flyp — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:37:50 GMT

What qualifications does Edwards possess to be chief executive of the USA? A couple of years in the senate? A failed run for the VP. No executive experience-no foreigh policy credentials. He had some ideas and good hair-that does not qualify him to be President.

re: What's Next: John Edwards

Judy Nickel — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:26:28 GMT

I am sorry Mr. Edwards pulled out of the race. I thought he was the only person for the job. We need a race for the best person not white , black , woman. or man.. What has our country came to? We need to get down to the important things. Open your eyes and look around you.