Cyrena:  I don’t hold anything against Obama at all.  I just think Edwards would make a better president.  It looks like the media is giving Edwards better mileage.  I actually wrote a criticism to NPR.  They responded saying that candidates “have very busy schedules and it can be very difficult to get interviews…”  That is probably true.  But the lack of mentioning Edwards name when they mentioned the other two top candidates has been glaring prior to a couple of days ago.  I sent my small dollars to Edwards.  I also emailed Edwards to remind him he needs to appeal more to ordinary people and not worry about unions and anti-corporation supporters since they already knew he was “on their side.”  And that he needs to put more focus on California.  I always feel like it is pissing into the wind without an umbrella though when I do these things.  You are correct in your assessment of Obama’s organization skills.  It is still a long way until next August.

Many rail against Edwards as a trail lawyer who made substantial money from law suits.  However, the people he sued were large corporations and that’s where the money is!  At least he knows how they work.  I sort of favored Hillary, but when I saw Madeline Albright standing behind her during her remarks after the Iowa caucuses I knew it’s going to be the same old politics——its time for a change as they say!  I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Shenon,

I’ve noticed some coverage of Edwards at my favorite website, which is truthout.org. So, check it out. The last piece on him was excellent. But, they cover ALL people and all issues. Frequently, Mr. Scheer’s pieces are featured there as well, so you’ll always find a good selection.

Admittedly, it isn’t as much as Obama or Clinton, though I think it has less to do with money (in terms of major media at least) than his detractors would like to suggest.  Besides, Edwards isn’t exactly broke, and while I certainly don’t begrudge him his personal worth, (I think he’s earned it) I would argue that he’s not ‘behind’ because of funding or exposure, (because he’s NOT really ‘behind’) and if he has less ‘exposure’ it’s only because he’s been delayed in coming up with a plan that more Americans are willing and ready to support.

For instance, he’s done a complete turn around on the war issue, among other things. Since that seems to be the priority for so many Americans, I think things will fall into a more defined pattern as we go along, and he will take his rightful place within the attention.

And, while it may seem like I’m ‘defending” Obama on the money thing, (actually, I am, but basically only to set the facts straight) his funding has come primarily from the grassroots movement, because he’s been AT it so long. That’s my point about the babysitters and such, that Obama’s campaign organized for the Iowa effort.

In reality, those are NOT ‘paid’ campaign workers. They’re volunteers. This was confirmed for me recently, when I received a call from his campaign, to caucus in one of the next states coming up for primaries. (yes, I had signed up, and I have in the past, donated small sums to both the Obama and Kucinich campaigns)

I had assumed they would be providing the transportation and lodging accommodations from their campaign treasure chest. Instead, they are arranging for shared transportation, (via automobile) and it’s the same thing with the lodging. Volunteers from around the country have offered their homes, and that’s how they are providing the ‘muscle’ so to speak, for this effort. And, the organizing has been phenomenal, because they utilize ALL efforts. Nearly everyone can volunteer to do SOMETHING, and so they do.

So my point is that Obama has been successful because he has FROM THE BEGINNING managed an extremely well run campaign of mostly volunteers. And, as I said, he really HAS been at it for a long time, beginning with a major effort at soliciting small donations from across the grassroots spectrum. And, small donations from LOTS of people, can still add up to the same (or close enough) to funds that people like Hillary can get from a handful of major corporate sponsors. In other words, $25.00 from several million ‘everyday citizens’ can eventually add up to a few million from Murdoch, or any of the other big Corp sponsors that back Hillary. And of course it helps that Obama went into this campaign at the encouragement of many in the entertainment industry, who have their own personal treasures that they’ve been willing to put forth. In all fairness, I’ve lost track of the number of times Obama has been to our region here in Southern California during the past year or so, and if Edwards has been here at all, I don’t remember it or never knew of it. At the end of the day, that exposure that you refer to has to be more or less ‘earned’. In short, had Edwards been here, I’m sure the media would have covered him.

So, I don’t think we can really hold it against Obama, that he’s managed to run a successful campaign, by mobilizing a huge portion of the ‘energy’ in the country today, in directing his efforts at a larger portion of the population – that portion traditionally ignored by the status quo political establishment.

Yeah, what’s with the corporate MSM that they don’t give Edwards his due coverage?  I have been listening intently at all of the news media and even PBS tries hard not to even mention his name.  What gives?  What can we do about it?  I guess sending money is a good thing but my little dollars aren’t going to make a dent in what will be needed to overcome the Obama, Clinton money machines.  There must be something more we can do?  Anybody have any ideas?  A friend of mine sent me an email of JedReport Jan. 04 that shows just how little coverage Edwards is getting.  Coming in second with no money to taxi the caucusers or to pay for babysitters wasn’t shabby.  But he has got to win NH to have a rat’s ass chance in hell to get the nomination. 

Check out the report at
http://jedreport.dailykos.com/

I agree. I’ve read the piece by Gordon in the NYT, (and I don’t generally like him all that much - Gordon that is, since I’ve believed he had an agenda as well) but it was an excellent piece. And, it thoroughly impressed me with John Edwards. I liked him before, and I like him even more now.

More than anything, I appreciate that he has been able to alter his policies and views, based on current realities, and do it without concerning himself about the standard petty accusations that are bound to be tossed at him.

It’s like I suggested before, If ya haven’t changed your mind lately, how do you know you still have one?

I have supported John Edwards from the start of this campaign. He was my second choice, after Dean, in 2004. What is amazing is that he is still anywhere near competitive with Obama and Hillary given how little attention he has received from the media. (How hypocritical of you to call it the Hillary Clinton’s road show when you were so enthusiastic about the Oprah and Obama media circus.) Could it be that Edwards is still alive and even competitive because the (gasp) voters like him even though the media so obviously doesn’t?

Nice try at attempting to look fair Eugene but your subtle little digs at both Edwards and Clinton did not escape notice from anyone that is really paying attention. You prefer Obama and that’s your right. Just don’t pretend then to be even handed. I used to have a great deal of respect for you.

Sorry rylly but your pal Kucinich is telling his supporters to back Obama.

Primaries are useful to ferret out and penetrate the candidates’ beliefs and stands on the issues.  To do away with them leaves the public even more ignorant of candidates and hidden agendas.  Agendas may still be hidden but at least there are statements on public record that can be used to show duplicity.  We have a case of that currently in the white house.  His legacy will go down in history as the worst president this country ever had. 

I too have committed to John Edwards and though a denizen of that mindless state of Texass, I hope he does the best in Iowa tonight.  I agree with their assessment that many others here have expressed, I think he is the best of the lot and that’s all there is folks.

Unfortunately, that’s why the Federal Government started witholding tax - in order to get back some of what you’ve paid (before you can use it) - you have to file a 1040.  Interestingly, there is no law on the books that requires you to file a 1040.  If you want more info on how bad we’ve been screwed by the “income” tax, get a hold of the late Aaron Russo’s “Freedom to Fascism” (google, also).  I sent away for the DVD early last year and was amazed and pretty pissed off about what he had to say relative to most of us getting nailed by illegal taxation.

Pitchforks and torches?  Sadly, I truly believe this country may come to that after BushCo, PoppyBush and Ronny Raygun.  As a former combat officer in the longest military/industrial lie, Vietnam, I hate to think of it, but wouldn’t hesitate if it came to that.

Peace

Dear whiny Ron Paul supporter,

Please use your internet to learn more about the can of worms that Ron Paul is. He is not progressive, he is (with a capital “r”) Regressive. But then again if you want to travel back to the turn of the nineteenth century, maybe he’s your man.

On another note regarding taking the country back “from the streets,” how about we all just stop paying income tax. If they come to try to arrest us, we can defend ourselves with just cause.  Not that it wouldn’t be just to demand our representation back, it’s just easier for them to wipe out a mob than to go house by house and harder to make the case to hang us as traitors for not paying taxes.

You’re both right, but we have to start somewhere.  If the next administration doesn’t start serving the people, we’ll have to take back the country from the streets.

It’s all very well to nominate someone who promises reform.  In an ideal world, that would be both satisfying and effective.  However, in this country, it takes two to tango: the president and Congress.  So the question is, really, who has the “coattail” ability to strengthen the Democratic Party’s control of Congress and who can work with that body of diverse egos and interests to forge a unitary policy of reform?  It is the members of Congress who are subject to the pressures and blandishments of the lobbyists, not so much the president.  Retail politics, whether at the national, state, or local level, are legislative games.  The president (mayor, governor) proposes, the legislature disposes.  Getting them to go along with policies that cut them off from perks and power will be a very hard sell.  Does Edwards have the demonstrated ability to arm-wrestle the lawmakers into enacting laws against their own self interest?  That is the question that he has to answer, not whether he gives good empathy.

that Edwards is my choice here in Michigan.  Of all the candidates of any party, he’s the only one who voices the need to overthrow the corporatocracy, lobbyists and cowardly legislators who are bought by them.

For three years the national media has all but ignored John Edwards.  It seems they prefer Sen Clinton because she would keep the pit bull repubs going for four more years if she won the White House, gives them time to re-group.  Corp America is scared to death of John Edwards.  He could keep the WH for eight years and would be most likely to shine a very bright light on what has been happening for the last 10 to 12 years, both Democratic Party and the Republicans.  I suspect the Dept of Justice is most concerned since their department has most failed the American Citizen by allowing this administration to operate most illegally, with no fear of prosecution.  John Edwards will never get the respect of the journalists covering the political scene, he’s his own man who has lived an average life and managed a very successful career.  He’s a good man and will do a great job….

we should end all primaries and have a run-off of all candidates in June and the top three in November.
Who ever wins can name their vice president.
I would think this might save money and keep corporation control to a minimum.
Of the top three Edwards would be my choice, althouth as unlikely as to winning, I prefer Mike Gravel.

Not to say that Iowa and N.H are unimportant but the true test for both parties will be super Tuesday.
I think the USA should do away with the early votes like Iowa and N.H and instead have two national primaries for each party. Have the first primary say in early Feb with all the candidates and the top 3 move on to a second primary in say June and the winner of the June primary goes to the general election.