TPM’s Greg Sargent explains that John Edwards doesn’t exist.
First he shows a graph of press coverage, indicating that Mike Huckabee got about 50% more interest than Edwards in the days, Jan. 6-11, 2008, following Huckabee’s win and Edwards’s razor-thin second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses. Of course Huckabee’s unexpected win is the biggest story. But according to the best estimates my admittedly basic search found, nearly twice as many Iowans caucused for Democratic candidates as voted for Republicans. Thus Huckabee won with 40,841 votes, while Edwards finished second with an estimated 74,377 Iowans in his corner on caucus night. As it happens, this is 711 more than Clinton, but Edwards is projected to get one fewer delegate based on allocation parameters.
You can make a valid case, I suppose, that Edwards didn’t merit more media attention during those days. Even post-Iowa he looked to be a long-shot for the nomination; New Hampshire made things worse. What’s more, Hillary’s New Hampshire comeback was obviously going to get a ton of attention. So the above numbers are understandable.But here’s the thing about this. For literally the past year we’ve been hearing justifications for the fact that Edwards, despite being competitive in Iowa polls, didn’t get the attention that his Dem rivals got — he didn’t raise as much money; his candidacy isn’t as historic as theirs; etc., etc. Indeed, the virtual media blackout of Edwards got so glaringly obvious that even New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt urged his paper to give Edwards more attention back in November. At a certain point we should just acknowledge that Edwards basically got screwed and that this shouldn’t have happened to the extent that it did.
Those of us who consider that Al Gore has long been screwed by traditional media might feel Edwards’s pain. How could it be that the corporations running the traditional media fail accurately to cover the campaign of an anti-corporate candidate? How could someone claim that the drug and insurance companies don’t get a seat at the table in the health-care debate, yet fail to get an honest hearing in the public square?
Can we recover from the corporatocracy, or will this experiment in popular rule succumb to greed and hubris like its predecessors?
This is all too true. I live in Raleigh. Edwards has only begun to get a little coverage and the announcers act as if it burns their tongues to even say his name. His daughter was in a car accident last Friday in Chapel Hill and while I caught a link to it on the internet I saw no mention of it until I think last night on the national news, six days later. I saw it on a tabloid the night before, I believe.
Everyone has consistently shut Edwards out. It amazes me. Wouldn't you think the people in the state of North Carolina would be thrilled that one of their own was running for office that they would be keeping us current with what was going on no matter which party he was from? No, not here. I mean if for no other reason than the fact that there would be a certain amount of "good" things that would happen to and for the state having a president from it? He forces them to look at things that make them uncomfortable so the culture here seems to be hang your head, look at your toes and pretend it doesn't exist, it'll go away soon. The nation seems to have followed suit. Shameful!
It's a long time to November and Edward's national polls have looked good. I would love nothing more than to see him be President and have to watch the local news folks have to report on him virtually every day.
Thanks for the post.
Posted by: tdr bob on January 17, 2008 9:05 AM