This year the media wasted no time in getting on the case. In an even more shameful intrusion into the political process, they narrowed the field to two, as though it were a fait accompli, offering us the rather titillating choice of whether a white woman or a black man should be picked to run against the Republican nominee.
Even though she has the highest negatives of any Democrat, Hillary Clinton was an obvious pick for this ploy because of her name recognition and talent for fundraising. Barack Obama needed considerable more media attention before he could play his part in this point/counterpoint duet. Both are considered “safe” by the elite because both have ties to the corporate-based Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the organization responsible for elevating Bill Clinton to national prominence in 1990-91.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the two far outstrip their rivals in contributions received from donors in such industries as securities and investments, hedge funds, private equity, commercial banks, pharmaceuticals and health products, education, computers and the internet. Hillary leads all of them in contributions from lobbyists. John Edwards joins the two at the top only in the category of contributions from lawyers and legal firms, and Chris Dodd leads all Democrats in contributions from the insurance industry.
It cannot be surprising, then, that media outlets paid little attention to the fact that late in November, while Biden and Dodd both voted no, Clinton and Obama voted in support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, one of the NAFTA babies that the Bush administration has been fast tracking.
The laser beam spotlight on Clinton and Obama is essentially a stop Edwards move. The DLC realized early on that Edwards was likely to win Iowa where he finished in second place in’04 with 32% of the vote. But it will be an uphill battle for the DLC and its corporate clients. And not only in Iowa. Just this month a CNN poll revealed that Edwards was the only Democrat who could win against any of the Republicans.
The Federal Election Commission has done its part to stop Edwards after he opted for federal matching funds by voting early this month to not match contributions made to Edwards through Act/Blue, a political action committee that handles contributions for many Democrats nationwide.
Why are they trying to eliminate Edwards from this race? For one thing, he offers a health care plan that can morph into single-payer if enough Americans choose the Medicare option. He has shown his commitment to unions by walking picket lines over the last three years and promises to make organizing easier for them. In his administration the tax break for the wealthy will be repealed and the minimum wage hiked again. He proposes to change our foreign policy from confrontation and conflict to cooperation and compassion.
Furthermore, Edwards established the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Caroline in ’05 and while others on the campaign trail talk about helping the middle class, Edwards consistently talks about the problems of the working class and the poor.
Finally, Edwards recognizes that in order to end the long national nightmare of this devastating war, restore the Constitution as the law of the land, and mend our shredded social service net, we need to rid the nation’s capital of the chokehold that the giant corporations have on our government. There can be little doubt that this last intention is what caused a senior Republican strategist to say recently on national television, “Edwards is the one that we fear the most.”
a 20-min segment discussing Obama v. Clinton in Iowa, NO mention of Edwards, who is statistically tied and most polls show in first of second-choices!
<
p>Whenever O’Reilly talks about Edwards its always about his mansion and how his neighbors thinks he’s an elitist fraud and he rarely speaks ill of Obama or Hillary.
<
p>I think it is clear that they are scared of this guy and are trying to frame him out of the election.
The viewers of FOX tend to be quite Republican. I remember seeing a poll indicating that they approved of GWB even more than Republicans.
<
p>That’s why there’s little downside to Democratic candidates not appearing on FOX. These are not the voters Democrats need to be winning over.
but the fact is that CNN and MSNBC follow the same behavior. I watch a lot of cable news coverage, btw.
<
p>Surprisingly, Chris Matthews seems to be the only guy on cable giving Edwards a fair shake. He did a great interview with him.
<
p>the Salon article you posted below is a good read, thanks.
<
p>Key Paragraph:
<
p>”Yet because that argument indicts the same Beltway culture of which our political journalists are an integral part, and further attacks the system’s power brokers who are the friends, sources, and peers of those journalists, they instinctively react with confusion, scorn and hostility towards Edwards’ campaign. They condescendingly dismiss it as manipulative populist swill, or cynically assume that it’s just a ploy to distinguish himself by “moving left.” In the eyes of our Beltawy press, the idea that our political system is “rigged” or corrupt must be anything other than true or sincerely held.”
I am just about commited to being an Edwards supporter. I like his populist economic message and I think he has enough experience and attitude to do a good job in the oval office.
<
p>But the media conspiracy always rings hollow to me.
<
p>By nature, they follow the leading candidates. And there are two leading candidates in the Democratic party. Edwards has been coming on, so maybe they’ve been slow moving to covering three front-runners. They’re covering more than two elephants. But if Edwards continues to move, and in more than one or two states, he will get the attention.
<
p>There is no conspiracy.
there is no conspiracy, but there is certainly an elitist attitude for most of the cable TV press.
<
p>Notice that they attribute Huckabee’s success to courting evangelicals. That is not the full story:
<
p>http://www.salon.com/news/feat…
If by “elitist” you mean they follow the top stories only, then I’m with you. But that’s what news is supposed to do, right?
<
p>Argue that they should dedicate more resources to cover a fuller spectrum of candidates and I’d say that’s a good proposal. Of course, I don’t control the budgets.
<
p>But even at that, there’s a cutoff, right? Can they legitimately be expected to give equal or even “fair” coverage to any announced candidate? How many does that make? All republicans and democrats and others. Eveyrone that qualifies for a ballot.
<
p>The field is narrowed by candidates being able to get signatures to get on the ballot. Then, do enough people like them enough to give them enough money to make them visible? (yes, those with more money have more power when they give it. welcome to life) Then, can they convince enough poll respondents to say they’d like them.
<
p>People are sometimes unrealistic. Sure, I could raise more money and increase my poll numbers if I were treated by the media the same way Obama is. But nobody is arguing that should happen. Kucinich might.
Glenn Greenwald, in his usually thorough style, agrees with this in his posting Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates.
Just curious, because the documentary film Outfoxed underscores precisely what’s being discussed here on this thread. Moreover, in addition to making it clear that Fox News is/was a big cheerleader for our war on Iraq and the big Republican news station, it also pointed out that Fox had affectively bullied the other Channels into falling in line behind them and complying, and a number of interviews with Fox News employees and former Fox News employees revealed that they were told exactly what to say and what and what not to report.