Not one for conspiracy theories

[Monty__]

but the coverage on CNN after the debate was pathetic. I think most feel Edwards won the debate and after a 2 minute interview with John, the rest of the 1 hour and 58 minutes was devoted to Obama/Hillary.

[Occam Bandage]

1. That is because the race is between Obama and Hillary.

Edwards is scarcely any more a candidate than Mike Gravel. Neither will be winning any states.

[Monty__]

2. Give me a break

scarcely more of a candidate than Gravel? The coverage was a joke. Edwards not only won the debate but was the only one of the three who didn't act like a 9 year old.

[Egnever]

3. lots of people dissagree with you

Who won the Democratic debate in South Carolina?
Hillary Clinton 27% 6734
John Edwards 20% 4939
Barack Obama 38% 9520
None of them 15% 3787
Total Votes: 24980

[Monty__]

4. People voting on an online poll disagree

Sorry if petty fighting appeals to you over actual talk about issues.

[Egnever]

5. Yea 24 thousand people

but hey you know whats right ... right?

[Monty__]

7. post debate analysis

from Bill Schneider

John Edwards got himself back in it — he showcased his style and his key issues, and is clearly back in the game. He showed he continues to deserve to share a debate stage with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and voters here will likely give him another look after tonight.

But hey, 24,000 people can't be wrong I guess.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Which states will Edwards win?

[Monty__]

8. we'll just to wait and see

but he's staying in the race and will continue to pick up delegates

[Occam Bandage]

9. I'll make it easy. He'll win as many as Gravel.

[Monty__]

10. I expect the smug comments

from Clinton supporters but I really am shocked at this coming from Obama supporters.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Smug? It's factual and dispassionate. Look at the numbers.

He got 4% of the vote in Nevada. Four percent. That's Kucinich territory.

He's thirty points down nationally.
He's thirty points down in South Carolina.
He's forty points down in Florida (not that FL matters).
He's thirty-five points down in California.
He's thirty-five points down in New Jersey.
He's thirty points down in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

He's trending downwards; he might drop from the low teens into the single digits soon. His campaign is effectively over.

[Monty__]

14. Yes smug

re-read your posts and tell me you weren't being smug

[Occam Bandage]

16. How about this, instead.

You read my posts and tell me where I posted anything that was not objectively accurate. If you're going to dispute the claim that Edwards has the same chance Gravel does, please start with the polling data showing him down by thirty points in every state.

[Monty__]

19. And why is that?

Some of it is because the media has decided this is a 2 horse race and JE is not involved. I'm not saying that's the only reason but you cannot sit there and tell me they're covering Edwards the same way they are Clinton and Obama. Heck, even when Obama and Clinton act like little kids they get media attention and Edwards is left out because he took the high road and didn't get involved in the petty bickering.

[Occam Bandage]

22. I'm not going to deny that media coverage is a vicious circle.

Without coverage, it's hard to build interest. Without interest, it's hard to get coverage.

Frankly, John Edwards was uninteresting from the beginning. His economic message didn't resonate with anyone; even his NH and IA supporters didn't seem to love it, given the exit polling. His '04 position as fresh-faced outsider was soundly taken by Obama, and Hillary had the Democratic establishment support locked up from the beginning. Edwards was, in many ways, only an inferior version of Obama.

He spoke well, but not as well as Obama. He inspired crowds, but not as well as Obama. He represented change, but not to the extent Obama did. Clinton had the inside track, and Obama out-competed him for the outside track. He decided to pin his hopes on an Iowa win; there his progressive populism might have a chance of distinguishing his message from the others. He failed to get that win, and so he didn't get the momentum he would have needed to win any other states.

To claim "the media decided it?" Kind of ridiculous, in my mind.

1. Hundreds if not thousands of editors of varied political leanings nationwide do not simply sit down and decide how to cover the next nine months of campaigning.

2. The media has historically not been biased in favor of liberal women and liberal black men, and against rich white Senators with centrist voting records.

3. The media seemed to like John Edwards just fine in the 2004 primaries. He managed to win states then, too.

[Monty__]

23. No, not really

I supported Edwards in '04...'03 really, but will readily admit the media killed Dean after Iowa. It does happen, it happens often. As for "his '04 position as fresh-faced outsider was soundly taken by Obama", you're right, Obama copied Edwards' message on that matter.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Yeah, Obama "copied" Edwards.

And Edwards "copied" Bill Clinton, right? Please don't suggest that John Edwards invented the concept of doing things differently than they had previously been done.

[Monty__]

25. Not what I'm saying

just saying that Edwards has had the same consistent message for longer than Obama

[JDPriestly]

28. The corporate media showcased Hillary v. Obama from the beginning.

Their stories are unusual although neither is the best candidate.

Why? The media is biased in favor of a sensational, different story. The media is not about telling the facts. It is about selling stories. The story of a black man running against a woman is an easy write and an easy sale. And it's going to be much more fun for them to tear down the liberal woman or liberal black man that they are now building up once they decide to help the Republican white male win than it would be to have to tear down a liberal white man who is charm incarnate in order to make sure their lackluster white male Republican loser wins.

[Critters2]

20. I'm not. When you have no clear policy positions,

you gotta fall back on smugness.

[Monty__]

21. some of the positions are clear...

they're just borrowed from someone else and then tinkered with to make it sound original

[avaistheone1]

11. It's too early to tell. There still could be an upset and Edwards could take it.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Where?

A thirty-point upset in South Carolina? Extraordinarily unlikely--and even more so, considering that unlike NH this year, SC is quite stable.

And even after that, he'd need multiple thirty- and forty-point upsets on Super Tuesday. Frankly, suggesting an Edwards win is possible at this point is like seeing a football team down by 28 with two minutes to play and thinking, "yeah, they can pull it out."

[Monty__]

17. So are you trying to

win converts for Obama? Can't you just respect the fact that a good many people support Edwards? And will continue to do so until he tells us he's out.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Why do you assume I'm proselytizing? As you say,

a good many people support Edwards and will continue to do so. I have no interest in converting DUers; that's a fool's errand.

Rather, I'm offering an alternative explanation to the question asked by your OP. You are disagreeing, and I am defending.

[redqueen]

32. I think the person you're wasting your time on will NEVER respect

Edwards' supporters.

Always trash talk from that one.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Apparently,

suggesting that there are non-tinfoil theories as to why Edwards does not command media coverage--and backing it up with polling data--is "trash talk."

[and-justice-for-all]

12. THANK YOU!! nt

:thumbsup:

[JDPriestly]

26. Occam Bandage, That is why the race is between Hillary and Obama.

[JDPriestly]

27. It is not about winning states. It is about winning delegates.

Edwards has already won 18 delegates and will win more. Also, Edwards is very serious about his policies and his messages. Edwards has lead on the issues including on what issues are important. He has already succeeded in achieving a great deal for our country. Edwards takes a stand on an issue and the other two follow. That is how this primary season started, and that is how it will end. Edwards is leading on the issues.

[Monty__]

29. Edwards has made it clear

that this his life's work. I'm sure the Obama and Clinton supporters won't believe it, but Edwards is staying in it to help people, not just to win an election. And yes, he will continue to pick up delegates along the way.

[redqueen]

31. Anyone unsure about whether John's in this for himself

need look no further than this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4142040

:hi:

[Monty__]

33. Unfortunately

the media and many here just don't get it and never will

[redqueen]

34. Seems like politics has become more and more like sports over time.

It's all rah rah rah and your team sucks and my team is great.

*sigh*

[Occam Bandage]

36. Tell me, then. How does Edwards expect to win more delegates

than any other candidate without winning any states? One second-place and a string of distant third-place finishes isn't exactly going to cut it.

[Monty__]

37. Tell me where anyone specifically said that

I said continue to pick up delegates. Like or not, John is not going away.

[Occam Bandage]

38. No, he is "not going away,"

but only in the sense that in marathons, people continue to run for hours after the first people cross the finish line. He'll hang around, but only as a vanity candidate; he's got no chance any more.

[Monty__]

39. That's sad

you really think he is a "vanity" candidate?

[Andy823]

44. Oh yeah,

Obama and Hillary came off looking so "good" after their little childish attacks! You can spin it all you want, but Edwards is not done by a long shot, and anything can happen. Obama is not looking so good these days, and who knows, people may actually open their eyes and see he is not what he claims to be!

[redqueen]

30. They're not even bothering to try to pretend anymore...

[ChiciB1]

40. My, My... Welcome To Our World Of Edwards!! What You Saw Last

night is what we've been seeing for WAAAAAAAAAAAY too long! It's time people woke up, but it it's probably too late!

America loses, AGAIN!

[Monty__]

41. I'm with you

I've been supporting Edwards since 2003

[GalleryGod]

45. Chici!

How's the squirrels and your M-I-L doing?

[ChiciB1]

46. Hi There.... I Missed It the First Time... I Won't "Out" You THIS Time!!

Still feeding the squirrels... all the time, but want another "baby" to care for. M.I.L still kicking, but "not there" much!

Glad to see you and I are on the same page too!! Gotta say, I'm just way to P.O.ed about all this Clinton/Obama stuff though!

Check in again... I'll stay MUM!

[ChiciB1]

47. Forgot... GREAT Picture... Just Before! I'm Very Short On "Techy" Stuff...

just run my mouth!

[GalleryGod]

42. Came up WAY short on balance. I, too, was quite disappointed.

I'd "lawyer-up" with JRE any day.

[BenDavid]

43. I totally agree and I will say as an HRC supporter Edwards

did himself good last night. When you have a bias going in from cnn that is pro obama i e mark halperin wolf blitzer you are not going to get a true picture of the debate.... did you see halperin score the debate he gave obama an A...I would have given Edwards the A because obama and hrc were debating each other and both a B....