John Edwards has gotten the least attention of any major candidate from either party.

...Giuliani isn't a "major candidate", I guess?

It's weird, too, because Edwards is driving the issues. Both Hillary and Obama have co-opted many of John Edwards'
talking points.

Edwards could try promoting major changes to the constitution to explicitly state that corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as individuals. Maybe that would get their attention.

I've noticed this, too. Edwards gets less coverage and thus fewer votes, and poll numbers due to less press coverage. Not the other way around.

The media does this because they can. Without a fairness doctrine, they are free to give coverage to those who will help their own bottom line the most. Edwards has taken on the big corporations, they don't like that.

Wow! Someone finally noticed the curious press blackout of the Edwards campaign. What does it mean? Perhaps it suggests that one shouldn't piss off the DLC or that Edward's anti-corporate message doesn't resonate with the corporate media. It makes you wonder if an increasingly monopolistic press is driving public opinion toward fulfilling its desired prophecy. Oh well, may the best corporatist win.

Media is owned by corporations, we have one anti-corporate candidate, it's not rocket science. He is feared by the man.

This a file under "No . . . Duh." story.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 6:28 PM:

Let me get this straight, Edwards is behind all of the candidates that have won races? Why could that be?

apparently you need reminding that delegates are assigned proportionally, not winner-take-all.

and apparently you need reminding that in one of those states edwards actually beat one of the candidates who won in the other.

and edwards did that without the media coverage that obama and clinton have gotten. (not to mention without all of the money that obama and clinton have had to spend.)

and

media, including TPM.

take a scroll down your column and see all the discussion, links to adds for Obama, Clinton, etc. etc. etc. ahem. Where's Edwards' adds? Even my own beloved progressives get spun my the MSM re: Edwards. Edwards who?

In another election year, I might be more excited about Edwards, because he does have something to offer the field, but the truth is that in 2008 he is outshined by 2 of the best candidates the Democrats have put forward in a long time. Both Obama and Clinton are rock stars - very smart people, shrewd campaigners and promoting ideas (stolen or not) to move this country forward. I think that the polls and the votes reflect this, and I think the media reflect this. Sorry Edwards supporters, I don't think grousing about media coverage wins you any votes or delegates.

I think they just got tired of his mill stories. I can't figure out why he's always talking about his father and grandfather, but never his mother. He's a broken record. The media, including TPM, are mainly entertainment. They thrive on controversy, and Edwards doesn't seem to be able to start an argument of his own, or sustain the argument once he jumps in on Mrs. Clinton. I actually wish media give the primaries a rest and get back to the Bush administration and Iraq.

geezus...he's had a year now to impress us...wait...he's been running nearly non-stop for prez or veep since freakin' 2003. his message ain't interesting to enough people. i'm a democrat for cryin out loud and i got bored with him like 4 years ago. i thought the "two americas" thing was the worst campaign slogan of my lifetime, but he STILL says it! he's the broken record (props to "wglad" right above me) that won't go away. i can not understand how someone so intelligent simply does not realize that he's pinned himself into a small left-wing populist niche that not that many people are interested in joining. he's polling at 15% of the vote and dems make up 35% of the US electorate. that means roughly 6% of americans like him enough to want him as prez.

so y'all are telling me there are people out there who are complaining that he ain't getting enough coverage? i GUARANTEE you there have been more media hours of coverage of edwards as a presidential candidate since '03 that ANYONE...he had his chance...but people JUST DO NOT LIKE HIM.

It's called "reality", my friends.

daniel155 wrote on January 16, 2008 7:29 PM:

Edwards national polling numbers....(yadda yadda yadda...)

the only thing edwards' national polling numbers have to do with anything is evidence of the impact of the national news media ignoring him and ignoring the fact that he is very competitive in the early races where he's actually been campaigning and where people are actually paying attention. national polls tell you what folks in indiana and south dakota and people who won't be voting until may and june (may and june!!) think. that's four and five months away. how useful do you imagine that information is? how worried do you imagine ANY of the candidates are about where they stand in those places right now?

CambridgeM wrote on January 16, 2008 8:01 PM:

In another election year, I might be more excited about Edwards, because he does have something to offer the field, but the truth is that in 2008 he is outshined by 2 of the best candidates the Democrats have put forward in a long time. Both Obama and Clinton are rock stars - very smart people, shrewd campaigners and promoting ideas (stolen or not) to move this country forward. I think that the polls and the votes reflect this, and I think the media reflect this. Sorry Edwards supporters, I don't think grousing about media coverage wins you any votes or delegates.

CambridgeM,

edwards beat hillary in iowa.

i think the votes reflect this.

edwards is neck and neck with clinton and obama in nevada.

i think the polls reflect this.

you've just swallowed and parroted the narrative that the media (TPM included) has been feeding you.

i think your comments reflect this.

Geek, Esq. wrote on January 16, 2008 8:09 PM:

Edwards had been running in Iowa since 2003, and he dropped 3% (33% vs 30%).

He finished a distant third in New Hampshire.

That's not because he didn't have media attention--voters in those two states got plenty well acquainted with Edwards.

He simply didn't belong in the same tier with Obama and Clinton.

Not too late to prove me wrong--he could still win Nevada.

But, it's hard to argue he deserved more attention when he hasn't even been close to winning one of the first two contests.

he didn't belong in the same tier with obama and clinton in iowa??!!!

he BEAT clinton in iowa!

and while the media might have played obama winning in iowa by a margin of less than 8% as some sort of decisive drubbing, it really doesn't make it so.

and that whole 'edwards has been running in iowa since 2003' bit is a bunch of blather about nothing. obama spent over $9 million to win iowa while clinton spent over $7 million in iowa for her third place finish behind edwards who only spent just over $3 million.

I said to someone right after NH that I would not be surprised to see actual tumbleweeds blowing through Edwards press availability sessions from there on out. I have to wonder if winning Nevada would get him any love at this point.

I'm still waiting to hear more about his transformed views over the past several years...

if you're looking for a transformation, you could take a look at his voting record starting in 2003.

Both Clinton and Obama have much better voting records re supporting progressive and working class issues than he has.

according to national journal:
on economic issues in 2004 edwards was more liberal than 93% of the senate - no one was more liberal than edwards on economic issues in 2004. on economic issues in 2004 hillary clinton was only more liberal than 63% of the senate.

on economic issues in 2003 again, no one was more liberal than edwards who was again more liberal than 93% of the senate. (while edwards was more liberal than hillary in 2003, hillary was more liberal than 90% of the senate - not bad but still, not more liberal than edwards.)

edwards and obama never served in the same senate.

As an Iowan, I find this thread deeply amusing. So many posters at this site gripe about how unfair it is that Iowa gets to winnow the field and that their favorite candidates never make it to their states. Yet, when Iowa does make it possible for an underdog to go on, people are up in arms in week's time demanding that he drop out.

Hmmmph.

The thing that so many seem to be forgetting, in the rush to coronation, is that of all three of them - Clinton, Obama and himself - Edwards has consistently done the best in the head-to-head polling numbers against the Republicans. This is the thing that the corporate media apparently doesn't want Democratic voters to know, as CNN excluded him in their most recent match ups. But Rasmussen has current numbers: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Note than although Edwards is tied with Guiliani in the Rasmussen numbers, Clinton loses to Guiliani (44% to 45%) and by by a more significant margin (38% to 49%) to McCain, a more likely opponent (she also loses to Huckabee and Romney). And Obama loses to McCain as well (43% to 46%). Edwards has the lowest unfavorable ratings of the three Dems.

I've said it before: All of us, and the Democratic Party itself should be thanking Edwards for expending so much effort to stay in, no matter which candidate you may prefer. If he were out of it, and the media was successful in crowning one of the other two as the primary winner right now, interest in the Democrats would dry up for the rest of the primary season in favor of the Republican race. Is that really what you all want?

Edwards had the best head-to-head numbers against every one of the thug party candidates. The media never once mentioned this in any discussions about electability.

Edwards isn't gaining traction because the media refuse to cover him.

The media are corporations and Edwards campaign is pro-people which translates to anti-corporate power over people.

Coporations are not going to stand for that.

Touting the corporate media-created "horse-race" between the corporate-financed woman and the corporate-financed African American is in the interests of the corporations and is pure entertainment, which is what corporations sell.

True change in America isn't supported by corporations so Edwards has been placed on his media iceberg---like a too elderly Eskimo---and expected to shut up and bravely drift out to sea.

Seig Heil to the corporations!

All fired up, I neglected to mention my appreciation, Greg, for this article on Edwards, and for the effort TPM appears to be making to offer Edwards a little more coverage. Keep it up!

Thanks!

'...Giuliani isn't a "major candidate", I guess?'

In the voting from Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, Giuliani has received just 4% of the votes.

By contrast, Ron Paul got 7% of those votes.

Are you sure you want to make an argument, on THIS website, that Giuliani is still a major candidate?

Tom:
His suprising finish in Iowa?
Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for the past 3YEARS! Hell, he should have finished first. The people in Iowa saw John Edwards as often as they saw their livestock and relatives and he still couldn't make the sale and close the deal. John Edwards is not getting press coverage because he is not making news, pure and simple.