I might be wrong but I think one of the reasons Edwards is at a disadvantage this time is because

[mtnsnake]

he's not a woman and he's not a person of color.

Don't get me wrong. My wife and I have been hoping for ages that we'd elect a woman or someone of color for our President. It would also be great if someone who's gay becomes President sometime soon, although we can only imagine how long it will be before that barrier is broken in this fucked-up intolerant country of ours.

Anyway, I do think that the Democratic Party is bound and determined to have either a woman or an African-American man as our candidate in 2008. If it happens, I think it will be wonderful. At the same token, I think this is a significant disadvantage for John Edwards this year, and I think this is one of the reasons why the media might not be giving him the same attention as the other two top contenders. As far as the Primaries, I think he has the hardest road to hoe. I'm not posting this to stick up for Edwards, I'm just wondering out loud.

[Armstead]

1. Tweety is pretty flagrant about that

He has said on his show that Edwards is "boring" because he's not a female or a person of color.

Personally I think it's unfortunate if true. I'd prefer to see someone with his fire than someone in a more interesting physical package but who is internally just more of the same.

[mtnsnake]

8. Then Tweety is proving my point about the media

He's one of the major reasons what's wrong with the media. That, and he's only interested in talking about what interests him, even if it doesn't interest anyone else.

[Seabiscuit]

50. I think Tweety uses race and sex as an excuse to blackout Edwards

because that's what his bosses tell him to do. He keeps gushing about what a "monumental historic event" it would be for a black man to become the Dem nominee. He's the ultimate media whore.

Face it: Edwards has been dililgently ignored throughout this campaign by the MSM because he's the one who's been outspoken about the power and corruption of certain corporations that have a "stranglehold on our democracy" in so many aspects of our lives, *including the media*! Edwards is the right-wing corporate media's worst nightmare. He's the only Dem they're really afraid of. So they do everything they can to manipulate voter sentiment by calling him "boring" and focusing exclusively on Hillary and Obama. They've been doing it all year. After Iowa, they focused exclusively on #1 Obama and #3 Clinton as if #2 Edwards didn't even exist.

[fasttense]

2. I disagree. His biggest disadvantage is that the corporate media have him on ignore.

They think if they ignore him, he will go away. His name is like a curse. "He who must not be mentioned" is conspicuously absent on the republican corporate media. They are seriously afraid of him.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Bingo.

NGU.

[robinlynne]

6. Even on public television! But people are choosing Edwards anyway.

[lisainmilo]

32. I agree with you...

Corporate Media has either given John Edwards negative publicity, no publicity, or publicity with negative undertones. It is unjust and ashame that M$M is running the elections again!

[peacetalksforall]

39. You are correct - 100% on target. The people who are voting

want a win and they have favorites, but they are not obsessed by gender, color, imo. For me, it's accepting war, not doing anything about vote theft, the conversion of the Constitution, lack of interest in impeachments, being too quiet on political crimes.

[hisownpetard]

3. I do believe the MSM is following the stories they think will give the biggest bang for their buck,

so Edwards' 2nd place upset in Iowa just falls by the boards.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Second-place "upset"? He fucking LIVED there for 4 years!! He should have won!

[LTR]

15. I'm sure he finished well above expectations

He most certainly didn't have the warchest, hype, media attention and resources of Clinton and the Audacity of Hype.

I thought he did very well in Iowa. Everyone predicted a much lower showing.

[spooky3]

18. and your candidate and Clinton each outspent him by at least 4 to 1

Edwards spent a lot of time in other states as well as Iowa, and at home in N. Carolina in the last 4 years. It's simply incorrect to say he "lived" in Iowa then. The other candidates also devoted considerable time of their own and their staffs during this period, because it was important to all of them.

Based on this one example, one can't conclude that time was any more or less important than money.

[TwilightGardener]

21. As Tweety pointed out: Edwards is rich. He could have thrown his own

money in there like Romney did. Money is a sign of support. He didn't have enough of either.

[GalleryGod]

42. Well put, however ...the Edwards Campaign DID still have an organization in place

from his run in 2004...the most valuable commodity in Iowa has always been, to borrow a phrase from my personal past, "Boots on the ground".

[maximusveritas]

5. Then again, Edwards probably wouldn't be going this far to the left

if the odds weren't so stacked against him. He's had no choice but to do it this way.

[BeyondGeography]

23. True...a point that should be made more often

plus, I think it was understood by people in Iowa. They didn't see the same John Edwards as in 2004 because the players in the game had changed. Obama was able to score points on the inconsistencies of Edwards because of it.

[elleng]

7. THE MEDIA IS IGNORING HIM.

DON'T FORGET - THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Then...what was his disadvantage in '04? Maybe people just aren't that into him--OUCH!

[iamjoy]

27. Maybe, But It's Also Timing

and it's just sucked for Edwards.

In 2004, we needed some one who had experience. We needed reassurance that our president could handle the challenges and threats our country faced. That's why people backed away from Dean. People liked Edwards, but they wanted a President who offered stability. We went for Kerry's resume, for safety. A decorated military veteran with decades in the Senate - how could we go wrong?

By now, I think Americans are a little jaded by all the hype of "the war on terror." Maybe not totally, but more of us are now than we were four years ago. We're ready now for something new, something fresh 'cos we're sick of the status quo. And Obama represents that.

It's about being in the right place at the right time - delivering the right message at the right time. And for Edwards, it just hasn't happened.

[mtnsnake]

33. The Democratic Party went for someone who they thought could run with the best war theme

to counter Bush, the sitting wartime president. That man was John Kerry, and boy did that stategy backfire.

If we had stuck to our traditional values, Dean would've gotten the nod, or maybe Clark, but no, we had to compete to see who could run the best war machine instead. That didn't bode well for Edwards back in '04.

[incapsulated]

11. It's because you can only be the "new thing" once

He had plenty of media coverage last time, when he was the sexy new thing.

You can't do that twice and you can't be a virgin again, either, lol.

Obama and Clinton are the new things now.

That's life.

[mtnsnake]

34. Very good point

I don't think anyone would disagree with you. :thumbsup:

[LTR]

12. This is a very rational explanation

The media is always trying to titillate. A black man and a woman named Clinton make for good copy. Edwards, a squeaky-clean white guy from the south, bores them silly, even though he's got the strongest message of all the candidates. Not enough to write about for them, though, unless a sex scandal arises.

That's my theory. And it also partially explains why they've got Britney on the brain.

Good post.

[mtnsnake]

37. Yup, it's amazing just how much coverage Britney is getting at a time like this

for being sick. Other than a generic concern for her children, or anyone's children in matters like this, why should anyone even give a shit over such a non-entity as Britney?

Imagine if it wasn't such an interesting time during the Primaries. This latest Britney chapter would be getting coverage around the clock, not that it isn't already.

[Adelante]

13. More than that, in my opinion, is image confusion

There is image confusion between version 2004 and version 2008. His largest turnout in Iowa came from conservatives at 42%, perhaps remembering 2004 when they liked him. Among Very Liberal he took only 16%, the very segment of the party he has played to for over a year. Voters don't know what they're looking at anymore possibly.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. his biggest disadvantage is that he offers nothing new

he's molded himself into this fighting populist persona that's been done before in American politics. People have seen it. They've seen the rhetoric, heard the speeches and decided they like it, to an extent, but not enough to pick it over something fresh and exciting and new.

[killbotfactory]

16. Or maybe people remember how he was last time he ran?

Oh wait, four years ago is ancient history.

[ClassWarrior]

19. How "was he" last time he ran, specifically?

If you're going to make a point, make your point. Otherwise you're just tapping the keyboard.

NGU.

[Ron Green]

17. It's a 50-50 combination. He's not the "woman - color" story, and he's a threat to corporate power.

[kurth]

20. cuz he can't sing hip hop and he's a lousy rapper

Too pink, no vagina. SO uncool.

[TwilightGardener]

22. I love how some DUers insist that Obama can't win because he's black, and

yet others insist he's winning because he's black. WTF?

[mtnsnake]

24. I don't think anyone is saying he's winning because he's black

I'm only wondering if Edwards is at a disadvantage, only during these primaries, in getting the same coverage as Hillary and Obama because he isn't a woman and he isn't of color.

[GalleryGod]

41. Point well taken..

[KingofNewOrleans]

26. Could be both

He can't win the general election because he's black, but can win the nomination because he's black. I'm not saying I agree with either, but they are two mutually exclusive arguments.

[GalleryGod]

43. Don't ever try to divine mutually exclusive theories here, on DU.

It'll drive you crazy..O8)

[krabigirl]

25. I don't care if a person is black, female, or gay. I just want to know what they have to offer.

[mtnsnake]

28. Yeah, so don't we all. What's that got to do with the OP, though?

Do you think Edwards is getting less coverage than Hillary and Obama, and if so, why?

[Adelante]

36. Well, coverage

He's getting less because he's not the story. He's the guy who as near as possible tied with Hillary Clinton, but since she was expected to win and she lost and he lost, it's not a great contrast. If he had even a few, say four points closer in to Obama, second place would have its own meaning, but he is as far away from Obama as Clinton is in terms of the first state outcome. He's doing his best to project himself up with Obama, instead of down with Clinton, but even reporters can see through that one.

[AndyA]

29. We need the best person for the job this time. Regardless of their race

or gender, we have to have someone who is strong and independent.

Hillary and Barack are both indebted to the lobbyists and big corporations for the huge campaign donations they've received. Those entities are going to expect something for all that cash. That makes Hillary and Barack unacceptable, since these big interests are largely responsible in the first place for the mess this country is in. Both of them have compromised their ability to make meaningful change, by their very greed.

Money is the root of all evil, they say. And in politics, that goes doubly so.

Edwards is the only one the big corporations fear, because they know he isn't indebted to them, and at their disposal for special consideration.

We need CHANGE. Edwards is the only one truly in a position to bring it. Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money. Edwards is being almost ignored by M$M, all under large corporate ownership. They fear Edwards. And that has to be good for America. Follow the money, people. Don't make another mistake by voting someone into office who's more interested in corporate financial success than our rights and freedoms and well being.

[GalleryGod]

40. As always, here on DU, you are fully entitled to your conclusions...

I've my own ,however.
Help John...it's worth the investment.($$$'s)

[AndyA]

48. You still haven't addressed the issue.

How is Barack going to bring about change when it will be to the detriment of his big corporate donors?

You can't answer that because there is no answer. Barack can't bring change.

If you like Bush's America, Obama's will be just swell... :eyes:

[DaLittle Kitty]

46. Right On Brother!

The CORPORATION FEARS JOHN EDWARDS! The Spin tonight will be interesting to observe and analyze. Donna Brazille is bought and paid for!

[KingofNewOrleans]

30. Barack is very symbolic of change

He's got a funny foreign sounding name and he's of mixed ancestry and he's successful in the USA. That is powerful symbolism here and abroad. Really can't argue with that.

Does he have the skills, position or the willingness to take the risks to actually be an agent of change as President. Well, you can argue that all day long.

[rodeodance]

31. Headline: Race, Gender Compete In Democratic Race

Forum Name Hillary Clinton Supporters Group
Topic subject Race, Gender Compete In Democratic Race
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x537#537
537, Race, Gender Compete In Democratic Race
Posted by rodeodance on Sat Jan-05-08 11:54 AM



http://news.yahoo.com/s/wisc/20080105/lo_wisc/14982788

Race, Gender Compete In Democratic Race

Sat Jan 5, 9:02 AM ET

There have been black and female presidential candidates before, but none with the same potential as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And for some the deciding factor in this presidential race will be one of two things -- race or gender.

VIDEO: Watch The Report

On the West Side Friday afternoon, JP's Hair Salon was buzzing, and it wasn't just because of work. It was because a black candidate running for president won the Iowa caucus thanks to a growing group of Democratic supporters, some of whom are playing the race card.

One client at JP's said that she's definitely voting for Obama.

"I think for me, race is trumping my gender," Pearl Leonard-Rock said...........

[The Traveler]

35. It amazes me

It really does. Of course the media is going to focus on the possibility of the first black or female President. That is history making shit ... and what a difference smashing either of those barriers will make. As the parent of a bi-racial child, I gotta tell you that would be a big deal to my kid, and something I feel personally, not in the abstract. I know there are a lot of people here who know exactly what I mean by that.

But that is not why the media is trying to snuff the Edwards campaign. It is, pure and simply, that Edwards poses a significant threat to the established order. He was not always so regarded ... and back then Tweety and others called him "the sleeper" and predicted he would have an impact. Things changed after Elizabeth's diagnosis. Why?

Here's a clue. One of the CNN media wenches (a crude expression, I know, but I am not pleased with media whores of any gender right now) was with the Edwards campaign when they got the word about her cancer. According to this woman, there was a sea change in attitude. Her summary of this change was that they were no longer couching their positions in cautious, moderate sounding terms in their back room discussions. There was much talk about living a good life as opposed to running a good campaign going on in the background. She predicted a change in the message of the campaign, and she was right. The campaign rhetoric immediately ramped up, the gloves came off.

I think what happened then was the phony John Edwards was put away, and the real one was liberated to speak his mind. Weapons free, caution to the wind. We're all gonna die ... it is what stands we choose to make in life that make the whole thing worth while.

I find my situation ironic. In 2004, I was convinced the man was a phony, wrapping liberal-ese around Reagan philosophies. I look at what he is saying now and the conventional wisdom is that it is political suicide, which it may well be ... but now I am convinced he is talking freely, and in a way that is making people think about things they have long ignored. And that is what makes him dangerous to the established order.

[mtnsnake]

38. Very interesting post

I think you should also post it as an OP sometime. :thumbsup:

[ozone_man]

47. I second that interesting post.

The whole thread is very interesting, but like mtnsnake says, this deserves it's own thread.

[DaLittle Kitty]

44. I am All For A Woman President, Just NOT This Woman Who Does More Harm Than Good

and Obama in the end, will be proven unready, LEAVING US w/ HillBill prepped and draped to be disemboweled by the RIGHT. Edwards IS ready.

However, Edwards is in Direct Opposition to... "The Corporation." That is his problem. And you in your own words said the Party is bound and determined to put up a Black man or a Woman. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY... NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THE PARTY! :cry:

[EffieBlack]

45. He's NOT at a disadvantage!

It's just that now the playing field is becoming slightly more level and it is no longer the exclusive province of white males. He no longer has the automatic built-in advantage that white male candidates have always had, so, compared with the way it was before, it may SEEM like he's at a disadvantage.

Why do you think so many white men hate affirmative action? It's not that they fear beng disadvantaged - they're not eve close to such a fate - they fear giving up the artificial advantage they've always had and have come to rely on.

[Ninga]

49. The irony of this is that women and people of color have insisted that those very qualites

not be the sole reason for their advancement. That they want to be judged on their abilities.

So fast forward to 2008, and the climate of this country, financially, jobs, health care not available for everyone, etc, etc.

Close your eyes and search for their abilities, and what you believe this country needs now.

I have watched the back slapping Democrats sit with eyes glazed over as John Roberts and Sam Alito were elevated to the Supreme Court with no fight from our side.

Over and over and over again the American people have been screwed by the very system that should be protecting their jobs and their health......where are the heros?


Edwards speaks truth to power, and as long as he is "in" I am with him.

[I was just saying...]

51. Nope. Its because he's run before and lost. Democrats only

give you one shot at the presidency. Edwards only done well because he's been
running since 2005. He's like the student who never leaves the university even
though he has 4 degrees.

It would have been better for him to try again for the Senate, skip the 2008 contest
and try in 2012 ar 2016.