DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Reddy]

Pardon my ignorance but how does this hurt Edwards?

because he needs all the media he can get. he's been blacked out and so he would've had 1/3 of the attention now it's 1/4. plus he would've been the most progressive candidate in the debates, now the elf takes that spot. Plus Kucinich doesn't like Edwards so he'll probably try to knock him down a bit. We'll see on that one though, that's just speculation.

[Reddy]

Edwards (or any other candidate) doesn't deserve anything. If he can't raise enough support on his own, without needing others to be excluded, than that's just too bad.

 

lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system.

[NorthSideSox72]

lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system.

Blacked out? Explain.

 

I wouldn't worry about Kucinich much anyway. Edwards should be ecstatic he's running so well in NV. He needs to worry about his abysmal standing in SC, his home state.

 

[Reddy]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/141617/72

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/12286/27650

 

it's inarguable.

[kapkomet]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/141617/72

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/12286/27650

 

it's inarguable.

Why, though? What's your theory?

[Reddy]

Why, though? What's your theory?

 

two reasons:

 

1) the prospect of the first woman or first black man to be president is the more exciting story in terms of news. it's different, so initially, that's what got the play.

2) Edwards is very vocal in being against the types of corporations that RUN the media. Why do you think Murdoch is with Clinton? Edwards is a threat to the mass media so they have NO interest in him getting elected.

[NorthSideSox72]

two reasons:

 

1) the prospect of the first woman or first black man to be president is the more exciting story in terms of news. it's different, so initially, that's what got the play.

2) Edwards is very vocal in being against the types of corporations that RUN the media. Why do you think Murdoch is with Clinton? Edwards is a threat to the mass media so they have NO interest in him getting elected.

I agree on #1, but disagree on #2. All the candidates on the Dem side, or most anyway, have made similar arguments - particularly Obama. Instead, I think a second factor is the whole soundbyte culture thing (blame for which falls to both the media and the people who take it in). Its just easier to focus on one or two people than the whole field, when all you care to deliver are high impact 10-second clips.

 

[Reddy]

I agree on #1, but disagree on #2. All the candidates on the Dem side, or most anyway, have made similar arguments - particularly Obama. Instead, I think a second factor is the whole soundbyte culture thing (blame for which falls to both the media and the people who take it in). Its just easier to focus on one or two people than the whole field, when all you care to deliver are high impact 10-second clips.

 

Edwards message hinges on corporate greed.

 

Obama used to take lobbyist money and he says that they'll have a seat at his table... so this is similar to Edwards how?

[StrangeSox]

lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system.

 

Maybe he's being outspent because he doesn't have nearly as much money because he doesn't have nearly as much support?

 

Look at Ron Paul, he's frequently ignored by the media but still rakes in the cash.

[southsider2k5]

lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system.

 

He isn't raising support because his message has changed 180 degrees since he was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Back then he was a middle of the road guy who stood for the average guy. Now he is the angry candidate who is out to attack and tax pretty much everyone who has more than a high school education. I lost all respect for the guy the more I heard him speak, and I am sure I am not alone. And trust me, it had nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, Edwards sunk his own ship in my eyes.

[NorthSideSox72]

He isn't raising support because his message has changed 180 degrees since he was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Back then he was a middle of the road guy who stood for the average guy. Now he is the angry candidate who is out to attack and tax pretty much everyone who has more than a high school education. I lost all respect for the guy the more I heard him speak, and I am sure I am not alone. And trust me, it had nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, Edwards sunk his own ship in my eyes.

Plus he's restricted by the fact that he elected to take public funds... which he had to do to survive, because he wasn't able to raise enough cash independently.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Boy, the Clinton machine really does keep finding African Americans to attack Obama. Now its Rangel's turn, calling his remarks "stupid". If you read the article, it appears Chuck is taking Obama's quote about King being a prime mover of Civil Rights legislation a bit literally.

 

I really do wonder what this does in a state like South Carolina, with a large minority population. I think over the long haul, if this keeps up, it hurts Clinton more than Obama. But in the shorter terms, since its not Clinton herself but her attack dogs, people might not immediately associate the comments with her, and wonder about Obama.

 

[southsider2k5]

Plus he's restricted by the fact that he elected to take public funds... which he had to do to survive, because he wasn't able to raise enough cash independently.

 

He's definately restricted by that, but I believe if he had run as the same candidate from 04, he would have raised a lot more money, and not have had to elect to take public funds.

[NorthSideSox72]

He's definately restricted by that, but I believe if he had run as the same candidate from 04, he would have raised a lot more money, and not have had to elect to take public funds.

Probably. I also think he's got some other things that caused problems as well. For one, the hangover effect of 2004 - he was part of a losing ticket, in an election that frustrated most Democrats and many independents. Why have him involved again? I also think that as people see more of him, they get the impression he's a lot more plastic than steel. That's been my impression. I don't know the man personally of course, but he doesn't seem genuine to me.

 

[southsider2k5]

Probably. I also think he's got some other things that caused problems as well. For one, the hangover effect of 2004 - he was part of a losing ticket, in an election that frustrated most Democrats and many independents. Why have him involved again? I also think that as people see more of him, they get the impression he's a lot more plastic than steel. That's been my impression. I don't know the man personally of course, but he doesn't seem genuine to me.

 

I hadn't thought about a hangover, but with the discontent over this last Presidency, I don't think that would have been a big problem. After all would anyone have voted against Al Gore, because he lost in 2000? I'd be willing to bet he would still be the leader of this race if he jumped into the race today. To me, it is more about the person than anything else. Then again I could be completely wrong

[NorthSideSox72]

I hadn't thought about a hangover, but with the discontent over this last Presidency, I don't think that would have been a big problem. After all would anyone have voted against Al Gore, because he lost in 2000? I'd be willing to bet he would still be the leader of this race if he jumped into the race today. To me, it is more about the person than anything else. Then again I could be completely wrong

Its about the person, but, Gore's loss in 2000 is not seen in the same light as Kerry/Edwards in 2004 - at least not by Democrats. As far as many people are concerned, Gore basically won in 2000. Plus that was pre-9/11 and before we knew how bad Bush would be. 2004 was the chance to end the worst Presidency in decades, but they couldn't do it - and I think people see that as a failure of those two people.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Edwards message hinges on corporate greed.

 

Obama used to take lobbyist money and he says that they'll have a seat at his table... so this is similar to Edwards how?

 

Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it.

[YASNY]

Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it.

 

touche'

[Reddy]

Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it.

 

lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie.

 

as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol

[Balta1701]

Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president.

Oh now come on, you're seriously buying into this whole "Obama is an evil Muslim who switched religions to run for office back in Kindergarten!" crap? My word.

[mr_genius]

Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it.

 

[southsider2k5]

lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie.

 

as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol

 

So was he not sincere four years ago when pretty much all of his views and opinions were hidden from the public?

[Reddy]

So was he not sincere four years ago when pretty much all of his views and opinions were hidden from the public?

 

four years ago his wife wasn't diagnosed with breast cancer. that changes things my friend.

[NorthSideSox72]

lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie.

 

as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol

John Edwards may in fact be a caring, passionate person who wants to help fight for the disadvantaged. I don't know him. But your argument seems to go offroad a bit when you start taking about Obama and Clinton supposedly stealing all his ideas (none of which are original to any of the three), and the whole B.S. Obama is secretly a Muslim thing.

 

And that last part, about meeting him, I do actually think that is a convincing argument. Fact is, none of us other than you have met the man. I might like him if I did. The evidence I have access to says otherwise, but, I am not 100% opposed to the idea that I could be dead wrong about him.

 

[StrangeSox]

four years ago his wife wasn't diagnosed with breast cancer. that changes things my friend.

 

So...he wasn't genuine or sincere before his wife had breat cancer?