The media, the media, always the media. What about the people? Why give them a free pass? The media are people you know. Why are they lacking integrity. Could it be this is a common American malady? Doesn't the behavior of the soldiers suggest that? How about US hyperreligiosity and blasck and white thinking? Not important? Isn't that what gives the media its power?

Very wise, Professor Chernus. After 9/11, a similar thought occurred to me: "They can kill some of us, but they can't kill all of us." How different America would be today if that had been the framing that got into common usage.

Edwards was part of a losing team in '04. The days of Adlai Stevenson losing in '52 and getting the nomination again in '56 are long, long, long gone. Lose now (even if you were just the vice presidential candidate) and you are finished in presidential politics. This is not just true in the Mafia atmosphere of the Republican party but among the screwhead, DLC corporate types who control the Democratic party and have the upper hand among those voters who call themselves Democrats. Who survived? Obama and Clinton, the DLC's Burns and Allen act. Edwards was the last chance to get out of Iraq and do something, anything, about the economic apartheid currently destroying the middle class. When I was as kid I remember seeing Disney's cartoon version of "Wind in the Willows" in which Mr. Toad drives his jalopy with utter recklessness and courts death at every turn. That's the United States now: a nation in which the idea of the common good is dead and buried; a nation headed over the cliff and smiling all the while.

While I wasn't an Edwards supporter, I think it's wrong to ask what went wrong with Edwards. Our system is broken, our culture dry.

This is perhaps the worst of fine articles by Chermus.

It was not the "Edwards Campaign" that went wrong. It was the democratic party.

Women constitute 60-plus percent of the democratic party and blacks approximately 20%.

These groups voted on "identity" politics fed to them by the corporate media.

Who was left to vote for Edwards?

80 % of blacks voted for Obama, and those black women that did not, voted for Hillary.

So Edwards got 0% from 20 % of the democratic party, and a small minority of the women vote.

Blacks and women dominated the primary process for the democratic party. It is that simple.

In the general election, blacks and women will not be able to dominate. They already vote democratic.

That is why we may have needed Edwards to win.

Even after Edwards came in second, the media was saying that he was out of money so, despite his good showing, it was basically between Clinton and Obama.

From the beginning, the media harped on the message that a vote for Edwards was a wasted vote and, even those who liked his ideas, were convinced that he was a lost cause.

The other thing that no WHITE MALE has faced before was running against the first woman and man with black ancestry. Even those initially swayed by Edward's ideas had to ask themselves whether their reluctance to support Clinton or Obama was more to do with policy or with racist or misogynist feelings they weren't prepared to own up to. For every person who said to themselves, "No, it is the policy difference" there were others who felt policy was just a rationalization.

Obama played it smart - he did not openly say that those who did not support him were racist (though probably a few of his supporters launched these insinuations). However, his speech about how wonderful it was to live in a country where a "Black man with a funny name" could run for President did imply covertly the opposite situation - a country so backward and racist that a Black man had no chance of being President.

In a real sense, Edwards (irregardless of what his policies were) was seen as an impediment to history. Edwards was cast into a role that he was never ideologically or personally, the personification of the oppressor, and I don't think he ever escaped that - or could escape that.

I think that Edwards, who saw everyone as his equal was repulsed by the idea that he was an impediment to history or even the suggestion (made covertly by CNN) that those who wanted to impede history should support him. It could be possible that Edwards feared he was drawing those who most repulsed him into his camp.

The final straw was his poor showing in Florida (where, it seems, he was the only one who kept to his pledge not to campaign in). This was not a real primary, yet CNN chose to treat it like a real primary and played up Edwards's poor showing. That was where Edwards was put into the greatest no-win situation - between abiding by the rules and sticking up for the disinfranchised.

RE: - Some say Edwards, a sleek rich cat himself, was the wrong messenger. He just wasn't believable. His populist message seemed invented out of thin air to save a failing election bid. All true

Ok, this guy is blowing smoke out of his ear (or other orifices). As things stand right now, you need money to run - which is something Edwards wanted to do something about - getting the corporate lobbyists out of there so more people from different backgrounds could run for office.

Secondly, Edwards dressed decently but not over the top. You couldn't expect him to be a contender if he bought his suits from the Sally Ann - they would say that he did not look regal enough to be President if he did.

RE: - I suspect the critical failing in the Edwards campaign was the way they framed their message. In their frame, America was divided into a small elite of winners and a vast populace of losers. Now it was time for the losers to fight back and even the score.

That is a bit of a mischaracterisation and oversimplification of the message. I doubt that Edwards would characterise these hardworking decent people he was fighting for as "losers" or those immoral bastions of corporate greed as "winners" - it was not some sort of sick football game - it was about real people being taken advantage of by corporate crooks. This was no "revenge of the nerds."

RE: - Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies

Does anyone know what Chernus's view is on homosexuality? I can't find mention of it right now.

Trying to find a clue for the reason behind this unfair rewriting of history. But my guess is that Edwards had a policy which Chernus disagreed with profoundly and I want to know what it is.

He has never been mentioned on Rabble, youtube, the CBC or CTV. He has a book on Amazon, but all it says is that he is not a Neo Con.

Oscar's analysis has a lot going for it, but really all three Democratic candidates (now two) are lightweights--short-time senators with no significant legislation. Edwards had a more impressive resume as lawyer than as politician.

vaudree,

Good response. It illustrates the power of identity politics trumping ideology.

Could it be that the Edwards campaign failed because this is the country that voted Bush into office TWICE, when he was 100% against the interests of the general public & ruined everything he's touched, and they tend to make choices that simply aren't logical? They want, according to polls, universal healthcare but didn't vote for the candidates who would bring that about, or at least are far less likely. They want a change to the country's foreign policy but didn't vote for a candidate who will realistically bring that about. They want less corporate influence over the legislative process then back candidates who surround themselves with those interests (look who constitutes the "economic teams" for each candidate). They're against "free trade" but ignore candidates who are willing to challenge that, just a little, for candidates who in all likelihood won't. The only thing that I can think of is that there are many people on the right who are fed up with the Republican Party or (seeing that the public is moving in an opposite direction to them ideologically) don't want someone like Edwards coming into power and have switched parties. Any "progressive" change that could have come about by electing another candidate was nullified by the new Democrats. It could also be that after years of hearing Bush butcher the English language they're voting for candidates who can deliver good speeches and can articulate their points well. Either Democrat would be a vast improvement over Bush or anyone in the other party but that isn't saying much. It's like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm talking about the "good type of cancer" because it's less life threatening. I guess from where this country has been the last few years these candidates, as flawed as they are, maybe look much better to the public than they are.

so the religious devotion to capitalism and its promises are a community value. nothing makes me want to scream more than this nice liberal drivel. does anyone really believe the rich and powerful will suddenly wake up one morning and with a horrible case of conscience? because we are all in it together. . . heartwarming. oh please. . .

The most and almost only serious problem for John Edwards, was the media and press. __That was it. __ He won every debate, he had the message most Americans wished to hear, but he did not recieve any fair press and that is the issue.

Two weeks ago, some of the major newcasters were saying that Edwards should drop out, because he was like Kucinich, a disruption to the process. Untrue and unfair press coverage such as that will kill any candidate's chances.

John Edwards was the only candidate who would have fought the lobbying in Washington effectively and that is the major and the most serious problem with our government. Lobbying is the direct cause of why we now have a Fascist form of government. Almost every issue we readers here at Common Dreams are concerned with, is due to the fact that we the people no longer have a voice which is heard by our elected. That's what happens in a country that has lost its democracy.

John Edwards would have fought to restore democracy. Now Hillary Clinton is taking on much of the John Edwards message, and Obama some of it, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope, ___ we'll see.

In last night's debate, Hillary sounded very much like John Edwards. I also believe if she is elected, Edwards will have a cabinet post and will be there i a position to fight to restore our democracy. There are several months to sort it our between Hillary and Obama, we'll know by Novmber. ___ For certain, we must not have another Republican in the White House.

l

In the beginning of the film "Patton", George C. Scott makes his chillingly repugnant speech to the troops about to be shipped out to North Africa. One of the lines was: "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." That's what happened to Edwards whom Democrats view as yesterday's news. The ridiculous and insulting notion that Edwards implied or referred to any Americans as "losers" is simply ludicrous.

I see the edit feature is "working" as usual.

Edwards needed a "Ross Perot" to lead his campaign. With a general populace of non-informed, apathetic voters one needs simple charts and easy to remember talking points that fit on bumper stickers.

Something I didn't like about Edwards was his saying too often, how his parents struggled to make it and we have a duty to give our children a better life than we have had. I'm 55, and my parents have lived a far better life than myself economically, I could never reach their standard of living. All of this excess has been at the expense of the environment, while the greedy have been raping the planet.

I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary -- at a time when the media were falling all over themselves to tell us that he was the "best campaigner they'd EVER seen, better even than Bill Clinton." I agreed with that assessment. So I see Chernus's point: something happened that changed Edwards profoundly between 2004 and 2007/8. However, I disagree as to Chernus' analysis of WHAT changed: that Edwards was characterizing most Americans as "losers."

I remember Edwards asking audiences in '04 to imagine all his splendid reforms (not to mention universal health care) and declaring with a sunny smile, "We can do it together -- you and I!" By contrast, in '07 he spent most of the time ranting about predatory corporations. Now, I take a back seat to no one in my loathing for America's megacorporations and their vicious policies -- but when I listened to Edwards recently I'd get depressed. The power of these institutions is enormous, and John didn't lay out specific plans to regain the balance between the citizenry and the concentration of corporate influence. This is no small omission! In '04 I felt empowered as I listened to him, but this time I felt more helpless than usual. (I was going to vote for him anyway, because he was the only candidate who understood the roots of our economic problems, but now it's too late.)

As to what he could have done differently, I find the "CCV" frame a flat-our fairy tale: "[It] is not about a fight between losers and winners, or good guys against bad guys. They urge us to frame every issue in the language of community: 'We are all in this together. From the richest to the poorest, we are all part of the same community. No one is excluded. No one's best interests conflict with anyone else's." READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN. Then think of what you know about the mindset of corporate CEOs. (You know, the kind of corporations that buy up a poor country's WATER and then don't care if people die because they're too poor to pay for their daily supply.) No. The power of these giants must be cut down to size BECAUSE their "best interests" conflict with EVERYONE ELSE'S.

Nader does a much better job of actually laying out a way to end corporate control. Damn right we need to rein in companies that get too big and controling as was done years before. Forget global, just an excuse for more abuse everywhere.

Kem Patrick, you hit the nail on the head! The media, the media. That's what it's all about. We can expect more of the same crap that is drawing us closer to fascism. There was no excuse for John Edwards finishing with such low ratings. Program after program , in many instances, completely ignored the fact that John Edwards was in the race. And with the congress we have and what we can look forward to, it will not change. Imagine whatyou can expect when a newspaper and a TV station in the same vicinity will be controlled by the same company?

Those who agree or disagree with me - thanks! - either way it shows you didn't just skip over my post.

RE - In last night's debate, Hillary sounded very much like John Edwards.

Both Obama and Hillary said such glowing things about Edwards I was wondering for a moment whether they just received news that he died. Ok, seriously, both were catering to Edwards supporters.

RE: Healthcare That is one thing that I was having trouble figuring out during the debate - and Obama was no better with his "85% the same" comment on clarity. Edwards, as a means of opening the door to future single-payer health care, suggested letting public health insurance (ie opening up Congress's plan to the public) compete with private insurers. I am not sure whether this is what Clinton is proposing exactly.

Clinton was saying that she would allow public coverage of those who are deemed uninsurible or who cannot afford private health care - which is not the same thing as letting all Americans choose between private insurers and the public insurer.

Clinton also talked about not letting private insurers Cherry pick - something which would be irrelevant if the public government insurer was going to compete openly with the private ones (offering better coverage and lower premiums as an incentive for people to jump on board) - with the purpose of eventually phasing out the private insurers.

At the end of it, CNN said that the AMA is not against single-payer because they are for "Public-Private Partnerships"! I just cringed with they said this. The introduction of PPP is the latest neocon tool used to erode the public system in Canada. PPP tend to let the private interests take care of the more lucrative side of health care while putting the mores costly procedures on the back of government - which drives up the cost of the government side of things. PPP is all about cherry picking and giving private interests a foothold even if America goes public.

It is like with telephone - private interests prefer to sell to city dwellers than rural dwellers whereas public providers tend to give both the same rate. PPP are all about Cherry picking.

RE: - By contrast, in '07 he spent most of the time ranting about predatory corporations. Now, I take a back seat to no one in my loathing for America's megacorporations and their vicious policies — but when I listened to Edwards recently I'd get depressed. The power of these institutions is enormous, and John didn't lay out specific plans to regain the balance between the citizenry and the concentration of corporate influence.

When the Mayor of New York spends more money getting re-elected than the governing party of Canada did, you've got a problem.

What depressed you filled me with hope and it was like the sun shone through the clouds.

RE: - Something I didn't like about Edwards was his saying too often, how his parents struggled to make it and we have a duty to give our children a better life than we have had. I'm 55, and my parents have lived a far better life than myself economically, I could never reach their standard of living.

You're a bit old to consider yourself a gen X you baby boomer you! Seriously, there is a certain amount of truth to that - especially for those who entered the economy during the Reagan era or whose livelihoods were most adversely affected by Free Trade (ie one industry towns). Before Reaganomics and Free Trade, however, it did seem that every subsequent generation was doing better than (or the same as) their parents - from the dirty thirties for whites and from the Civil Rights act for blacks.

No American will question the American myths completely (though they may accuse someone else of undermining them a bit):

1) America is the land of opportunity;
2) America is the greatest nation on the planet;

RE: - In the beginning of the film "Patton", George C. Scott makes his chillingly repugnant speech to the troops about to be shipped out to North Africa. One of the lines was: "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

You don't talk in terms of winners and losers with peace-keeping mission - only with COMBAT missions. Edwards promised, not only to take all the COMBAT troops out of Iraq, but also not to start any more COMBAT missions. Did I imagine his policies mentioning increased peace-keeping in Darfur etc on his webpage before he stepped down?

Agree totally with the "chillingly repugnant" assessment of this Paton speech.

RE: - Could it be that the Edwards campaign failed because this is the country that voted Bush into office TWICE

You left out the fact that AOL viewers (John Morgan pronounced it A-hole) voted Ronald Reagan the Greatest American. Don't blame me, I voted for Rosa Parks.

what went wrong was the media latched on to the "first woman/first black" president mantra and never let go for even a day. Edwards just couldn't compete against that; especially since both candidates started to adopt his platform. He didn't do anything wrong; it was just that the media and many voters were swayed by the first woman/black argument and it was difficult if not impossible to get past that.

Edwards opposed insurance companies and the media gets a lot of their ad revenue from insurance companies. The media shut out Edwards and the rest is history.

A different way to look at this race is Walter Karp's "Hack" vs "Reformer".

Both Hillary and Obama are corporate centrist hacks. They are status quo politicians. They will frustrate progressive change at every step as did Hillary with single payer health care.

It is progress of a sort that a woman and a black man are now the status quo candidates. Great.

Edwards was a reform candidate. People can disagree whether he was sincere. I have friends who should know, who say he is sincere.

The media marginalized and ignored Edwards in the same way they did Bill Bradley and Dr Dean. That is a sure fire way to know he was the real deal.

If Edwards had begun winning some primaries, the MSM would have torn him to shreds.

My friend Paul says "both parties are so completely corrupt that reform is no longer possible through normal political means."

Evidence accumulates to indicate the truth of this.

REf: KEM PATRICK February 1st, 2008 1:19 pm
The most and almost only serious problem for John Edwards, was the media and press. That was it. He won every debate, he had the message most Americans wished to hear, but he did not recieve any fair press and that is the issue. Two weeks ago, some of the major newcasters were saying that Edwards should drop out, because he was like Kucinich, a disruption to the process. Untrue and unfair press coverage such as that will kill any candidate's chances.

I agree 100% with Kem Patrick's statements above. CNN and Fox were the prime leaders in the Edwards massacre. I truely believe they were very afraid of John Edwards and mounted a war guaranteed to insure his demise in order to protect their corporate profits and multi-million dollar positions. The rest of us will surely suffer because of their ruthlessness.

It's not as simple as blaming it on the media though. I agree that the media narrows the debate and focuses on superficial issues, & does a horrible job in general of educating the public on issues vital to them. However, people realize, with no help from the media already, that things are going wrong and need change. The media isn't calling universal healthcare but the public supports it none the less. The media isn't calling for increased control of corporations, they are corporations who need to be controlled or eliminated. Some of the blame has to be placed on the people themselves. They realize the problems without the media explaining it to them and yet don't do what's necessary to bring that change about. Look at any country that has undergone the types of changes that we are seeking, it didn't happen because of the media or great leaders lead them to that change. The people themselves forced change by organizing and education each other, and they created many times their own media to counter the capitalist press.

Ira,

John Edwards tried the "sunny" approach in 2004 and failed to win his party's nomination. I remember people complaining about the lack of specifics and being too "feel good" in his approach.

I agree with Dixie above that a major factor in Edwards petering out is that he came up against the "first viable woman/first african american" wave of history.

The "we are all in this together" framing would not have worked. While this is true on principle, much of America has "bought" into the dream that it is possible for a person to "become one of the rich and powerful." Any mention of "us" undermines the "ambition" of many to be the "rich powerful guy."

I think Edwards did the only thing that could have worked for him in this election cycle. Unfortunately for him, he came up against a historical tide. There are other things such as his repeated use of "son of a mill worker," and 28,000(?) sq. ft. mansion that contributed, but those are simply the sufficient conditions for his early exit, not the necessary ones.

As Mr. Chernus pointed out, it was not just one thing. Part of the problem for Edwards was the reality that most Dim voters chose either the Feel good, platitudes of Obummer or the mainstream rhetoric of Billary. There just were not enough voters left, especially not with the Media turning the whole thing into a horse race, and doing their best to convince the voters that there were really only two Dim choices to begin with, the Cool Black dude or the feisty, competent Woman. Face it the typical Dim voter just can't resist that choice, they actually believe real change will come from the apparent defeat of Sexism and Racism. Too bad neither of these candidates is likely to live up to that expectation.

"CNN and Fox were the prime leaders in the Edwards massacre."

You have to expect that that is going to happen. You can't expect to bring about things like universal healthcare without a massive reaction from the entrenched interests. Look at countries like Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia now. There are changes in those countries that are even longer over due than here and what has the response been to the social movements there (which constitute the vast majority of the country)? They've attacked them directly with the police, military & press. The people have responded by organizing and creating a participatory movement to counter that. I think the problem is people's belief in an outdated liberal democracy. There's nothing that involves the general public in the actual workings of government (if you look at the progressive constitutions that have been voted on in recent years in countries going through these types of changes that has been a fixture) and the people haven't risen up and done anything to bring that about. We're all supposed to vote for these kings and they're supposed to do the impossible, fighting interests much more powerful than them, with the public sitting back and doing nothing, outside a small minority. The press is a problem but people on a mass scale, there are a relative minority who are involved, haven't risen up and forced change. Don't expect anyone like anyone like Edwards, more so for someone more to the left, to get elected until they do.

Edwards campaign failed because the corporate-media blocked him.

On the one hand, their owners weren't going to support an anti-corporate/pro-people's government message -- and the WARNING from the Chamber of Commerce that they would raise $60 million to "bite his ass" . . . was that the expression? . . . was quite clear!! Actually, that was their warning to both populist candidates --- Kucinich and Edwards.

Also, corporate media get 80% of the campaign funds raised--!!! Which means that Clinton and Obama were contributing lots of dollars to their networks, but Edwards wasn't.

Finally, they simply totally shut Edwards down and out --

And, they basically hit Kucinich and Edwards with the same stone ---

No Democrat stood up to say that they would boycott NBC or CNN if they cut Kucinich out ---

And, then they quickly came for Edwards ---

They want to be able to concentrate on destroying both Hillary and Obama -- which they now can do. But the money is still riding on a Democratic winner just in case!!
It still succeeds in BUYING more of the Democratic party.

And, how much does the business/Republican party now own of the Demcratic Party ---? Openly with the "blue dogs" and two corporate candidates for president - plus Pelosi and Reid --- I'd say about 50% . . . with lots more to be turned over in this next round.

GRANT ---

I think your comments are very accurate about citizen involvement --

there will be no president now who will have sufficient power to overcome these vast interests, especially the Miliary Industrial Intelligence Complex. IKE saw that --
and JFK fell because of it.

They are all quite ORGANIZED --
and the people aren't -- !!!

RichM: Well said, and I agree entirely with you. In fact, what Chernus is suggesting for a successful approach is precisely what Obama is doing: he preaches hope, change, and unifying the American people. That is NOT what we need at this point. We need huge numbers of people to awaken to reality from their long sleep, and then we need a huge struggle against the corporations and the rich. You can't fuel that necessary struggle with shallow analysis of the situation we are in. You need a good old marxist analysis--something we haven't had in a long time in this country. Edwards was beginning to do that, but of course he was squelched by the mass media. His message, Kucinich's, and Ron Paul's messages are tolerated to a point, but ultimately the corporate controllers always manage to make those messages appear perverse and marginalized. I wish Ira Chernus would write something about how to radicalize more of the American populace at a time when radicalization is in order due to the prevailing conditions.

What went wrong was that he tried to run a campaign aimed at workers and ordinary Americans inside a Democratic party that does not care about workers and ordinary Americans.

Basically its much the same thing I've said about the Kucinich campaign. The Democratic Party doesn't want to hear this and does not want these views to be the platform on which it campaigns. And today's Democratic Party is not democratic.

Edwards ran into the one-two punch of corporate money and corporate media. Neither wants a candidate that's talking about the rights of workers and what's good for workers and Americans. Both want candidates that will only think of increasing corporate profits.

And today's Democratic Party is rigged in favor of corporate interests. The very fundamental rules of the presidential nomination process are tilted that way.

For example, the Democratic party could use whatever campaign finance rules they wanted in their primaries as long as it stays under the limits set by Federal law. The rules the Democrats choose to use are as wide open to corporate money as they can be under federal law. Obviously a campaign like Edwards is not going to attract corporate money. Therefore, he was always at a disadvantage to the Hillary and Obama campaigns that are flush with corporate dollars. Today's Democratic presidential nomination process is designed such that it will always be won by the candidate with the most corporate money. Or that at the very least has a lot of corporate money. We'll see soon whether an Obama with some corporate money can compete with a Hillary campaign with the most corporate money.

Also, look at the calendar. The old system where the events stretched from Jan to June is gone. Now its almost just a one day primary vote that's next Tuesday. To compete in that, again you need corporate money. How can you run primary campaigns from NY to CA at the same time if you can't flood the corporate airwaves with ads paid for by corporate money? The old system allowed a more grassroots effort to build momentum.

One of the truisms of American politics is that most voters don't pay any attention up until 3 weeks before election day. So, most of what happened last year was only paid attention to by political junkies like me. When those 3 week attention spans were spread out across the months of the calendar, a grassroots effort could focus on a few states, get some wins and some momentum and move on. In this system, you've got to be on the corporate airwaves nationwide for the same 3 week period.

Also, the top levels of the Democratic Party are all very beholden to corporate interests. Thus, an Edwards campaign that challenged those same interests was never going to be supported by the top level democrats. It has to be a grassroots efforts. The US Senators, Represetatives and Governors who are in their seats thanks to corporate money and corporate backing are not going to support a campaign like the one Edwards tried to run. In fact, they and the people who put them where they are are going to feel very threatened by something like the Edwards campaign.

If the Edwards campaign had found a way through the first roadblocks set by requiring corporate money and corporate media support, he'd have run into these party insiders in their convention seats as very undemocratically selected super-delegates who would have pushed any close nomination process towards the other corporate friendly candidates.

So, you have Edwards trying to run a race where he emphasizes American workers and the issues ordinary Americans face because of corporate interests inside a party that is dominated and beholden to those same corporate interests. The party has its rules rigged such that corporate money and corporate media support and the support of party leaders who are beholden to the same corporate money and media is key to success within the party.

Like Kucinich, this is another demonstration that this sort of message simply can not be promoted from within today's Democratic party. If anything, the failure of the Edwards campaign makes the point even more strongly. Unlike Kucinich, Edwards is a slick and smooth and capable politician who knows how to run and win state-wide campaigns. The failure of this campaign to get traction in today's Democratic Party should be taken as a very clear sign that workers and ordinary Americans and any candidate that might try to represent these people against corporate power are not welcome nor wanted within the Democratic Party.

Oh, the Democratic Party will lie and posture and try to pretend it represents us in order to con us into voting for the Democrats one more time. But in terms of real power, in terms of being able to shape the policies and place the policies of the Democratic Party, its clear that we are not welcome in the fancy hotel suites where that is going to happen. Our only role is to be extras in the film that show up only to vote these people into power. Then we are expected to sit down and shut up and take what scraps we are thrown until our votes are needed in the next phony election.

Yes, the MSM ignored Edwards because he threatened to take $$$ out of their pockets, since they are no longer really news gathering organizations but a sub genre of the corporate entertainment industry. You can understand drooling, fearful, not-so-bright Republicans believing what they are told by the Goebbels Broadcasting Network . . . but the Democrats? Maybe McLuhan was right; maybe the medium is the message and that's all there is to it.

WHAT WENT WRONG?
1) DID NOT ADMIT HIS VOTE FOR THE PATRIOT ACT WAS MISTAKEN.
2) DID NOT ADMIT HIS VOTE FOR ILLEGAL ATTACK ON AFGHANHISTAN WAS MISTAKEN.

CAFTA
NAFTA
ETC…..

Pardon my language, but what a crock of $hit Ira - "So the language of "us" against "them," however well intentioned, can never be part of the solution."

If the sheeple don't wake up to that very reality, that it IS us against them, all will be lost! It was not the message that was wrong or improperly framed, it was the corporate MSM deciding that the people would not see the picture, framed or otherwise!

Rich M,

Lots of truth in your response. Part of the tremendous success of the plutocracy could be attributed to the success of efforts to pacify the majority public. One way to pacify would be to cultivate the myth that "we're all Americans, all in this together regardless of economic status." That myth of community plays right into the plutocracy. If the lower classes believe we're all a big happy family like on Sesame Street, yet the upper class is at war, this is a classic situation in gaming theory where the rich will continue to widen the gap and exploit the weakness of the opposition who is not even in the game.

Oscar,

Maybe some truth to that, but I think many African-Americans resisted Obama quite publicly, and that Euro-Americans warmed to him first -- and many women resist and resent the pressure to vote Hillary strictly on gender.

Vaudree,

Excellent insight.

I'd like to mention one last element to this which I believe is not addressed in the article or the responses. That is – Americans want to be winners. If we can't be a winner, we still want to associate with winners. We want to look like them, think like them. Many want to watch the beautiful people of MSM who deliver the message crafted by the winners because they want to be that thing, they want to be around it, feel like they are in the club.

There's a subtext to most political discussion of being "with it" or being "out of it." That bifurcation is designed by the plutocracy to exploit the fact that the nameless and faceless masses that anonymously patrol the margins of the high school hallway will always want to have whatever fleeting association they can have with the popular gang of jocks and cheerleaders.

I guess what I'm saying is I believe there is a very strong sociological component to this which places some of the disease in the internal frame of those that are kept down.

I have nearly given up trying to understand the way the Democratic primaries fall. Since Democratic primary-goers kissed the cold fish Kerry and turned away from the authentic man Dean in 2004, I've been at a loss. After all, many of these dynamics suggest Edwards would be the perfect candidate on many levels, yet he's out.

RE: - It's not as simple as blaming it on the media though.

Is it really "blaming" when you are giving credit for a job well done!

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but she won yesterday's debate hands down. However, if you look at any coverage of the debate today, it seems that Obama was the clear winner.

I would not blame the people - Americans are unfamiliar with the nuances of the different systems the candidates are proposing because they are not sure what universal health care is supposed to look like. Even I am having trouble following it.

And, right after the debate, CNN had a special on Health Care which seemed to be promoting it but not really.

Of course Canadian's satisfaction with our Health Care system is low - many of us could remember when it used to be better (before Paul Martin gutted funding to the Provinces and Filmon started following Connie Curran's advice). Americans have no such memory of things being better.

They have also not been subjected with images of a President taking money in paper envelopes in hotel rooms from someone avoiding extradition to Germany where he is likely to serve the rest of his life in prison.

In much the same way officials hung a huge blue curtain over a tapestry reproduction of Picasso's Guernica at the entrance of the Security Council when Colin Powell and this administration lied to Americans and the world about WMD in Iraq, the corporate MSM did the elite's bidding, and hid the truth that Edwards tried to tell the American people.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0209-04.htm

The assumption is that Americans can think. Wrong assumption. Americans feel their way in an election, and Edwards looks and feels like a school boy. Clinton beats him on gravitas and experience. Edwards has no gravitas. McCain has it, Clinton has it, and Obama is succesfully substituting style for gravitas which he doesn't quite have. Americans want a father figure, or an uncle figure, not a cousin figure which Edwards is. Americans like a leader able to kill with ease. Bomb,bomb McCain is the likely winner.

Strange that Colin Powell would find that particular painting offensive! Wished your link would show a better picture of it.

I remember an interview where Colin Powell said that he was duped by the Bush administration but can't find it.

After reading all of the comments, it is the general consensus by a large vote, ___ the media ended John Edwards campaign.

Pogo was correct in 1949, but if he were still around, he'd likely say. __ "We have met the enemy ___ and it's the media."

For Fascism to be effective, a police state, the first order of business, is to control the media and the press. "Mission accomplished." Hillary will be their next target, and in fact, she already is. You also see that situation here with many of the current Common Dreams articles.

With either Obama or McCain in the White House, the corporations will continue to be the American leaders and firm rulers and the beat will go on.

Colin Powell was duped by the Bush administration ~VAUDREE~. Powell was not privey to that meeting in the oval office with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Director of the CIA, George Tennant, when Tennant agreed to alter the very critical 2002 NIE report.

A few days later, Powell read the ALTERED NIE report to Congress, which was broadcast with world wide TV coverage. A few days after that, Congress voted to authorize military force, if Saddam didn't destroy the WMDs he didn't have to destroy. Hans Bliss was then forced to pull his UN team of inspectors out of Iraq and we marched to war.

If the Democratic party is made up of 60% women who are in love with Bill Clinton who has been selling our countries assets to the Arabs and he is making jillions of dollars and the ladies do not see this, maybe we should never have given them the right to vote.
Edwards should have exposed the Carlyle Group made up of Bush People who are wheeling and dealing all over the world, especially in the middle east. Bill Clinton's deals in the Middle East and the Arab countries where he making jillions of dollars should have all been exposed by Edwards, but being a Company man he walked the line and screwed up big time.

Edwards looked like a school boy LIZARD? Well I suppose you would have a similar opinion of Audie Murphy. JFK was a young and handsome man also, and he did OKay at the polls. JFK cut his own hair though, at least it looked like he did.

Ira Chermus is wrong. There was concern for poor people in America until the 70s. That's because so many people starved during the Depression. There was support for the Great Society in the 60s and people were opposed to the death penalty and felt sympathy for the little guy.

Nanoo says that her parents had a better life than she has had. Are you counting just the part that you remember? Cause my parents had a better life than I have had also, after the 1950s.
Until then, they went hungry and cold during the 30s, my Dad was in the military for 5 years and fought in the Pacific in the 40s, they were homeless after the war, they neither one had indoor plumbing until after the war.
But then things were fine. They had jobs, a house, indoor plumbing, vacations, medical care, insurance, all the stuff I've rarely had through my up and down life.
And my kids are way worse off. Unemployed, or temp employed, living hand to mouth with no security. I have no problem in stating that they are losing in the class war.

The ruling class spent billions in the 70s to change the attitudes of the working class. They founded think tanks and bought media and reporters and hassled the heck out of the few reporters who were truthful. They still hassle anyone who speaks truth. That's why Americans vote against their interests.

Anyone who votes for one of the two corporate funded candidates, Obama or Clinton, is showing the ruling class that they are winning.

mirf59 wrote:

"After all, many of these dynamics suggest Edwards would be the perfect candidate on many levels, yet he's out..."

Well said! In fact, polls just before the Iowa caucuses did in fact show that Edwards was the one Democratic candidate who could convincingly beat ANY of the Republican candidates.

How does Prof. Chernus "loser" theory expain this?

Sorry to say, but the media's memory-holing of Edwards is fully sufficient to explain Edwards demise.

Our system is somewhat rigged against good people, and good ideas, coming to high office.

Here in Minneapolis/St. Paul we are still blanket-advertised with Clear Channel billboards for KTLK FM, a corporate "right-wing" radio station. There's huge money keeping people glued to the corporate/neocon "right" or "left".

Given this environment, few self-respecting people would probably want to -- or could -- run for any office higher than state legislator. So it's not Edwards who failed so much as corporate money coupled with perhaps a somewhat politically illiterate culture.

The general consensus is that the media ended Edward's campaign. Of course they did! Otherwise we would have to think ill of the American people. Americans are victims! Poor us! We're so intelligent, sensible, and open minded! If it weren't for that hateful media our true goodness would shine through for all to see! America! Land of the almost free, and home of the not so brave! Edwards does not remind anybody of the strict father who took care of us. Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are mummy and daddy! Accept it, the pattern isn't going to change. Don't blame the media, don't blame anybody. Like it , or not, this is the will of the people. Why? Because the people of the US are PRIMITIVE! Live with that!

vaudree, funny - I watched debate and thought Obama won it because he showed he belonged in the same league and provided evidence that he can think ahead and knows his limitations. Hillary came off as someone who, while well-versed in policy and issues, just cannot make the "right" decision looking ahead into the future.

Marlene D. Trick:

You are right on. The issue is the American people, not the politicians or elites. The American people are simply inadequate. They spend too much time thinking about how to please themselves to care about anything else. Consume and thou shall be happy! Let's eat and forget everything!