What's Wrong with Edwards' Mini-Ads

What kind of argument is that?? Newsweek is slanted. They admit that when the first ad was made, he WAS the only one that beat the Rep. Also, it doesn't say the MOST recent, only recent. And if he wasn't even included in the new one than that makes his point even more.

And I'm sorry to all of the Kucinich fans (I like him too), but he isn't really a candidate anymore. Edwards is campaigning against Obama and Clinton, not Kucinich. The recent MSNBC Debate should show you that. He can't compare himself to every fringe candidate out there...he's not competing against them.

I completely disagree with the writer's disingenuous and misleading characterization of these ads as "wrong" for the reasons pointed out in the earlier posts. And I wonder what motivates the "news media" to try to eliminate Edwards from consideration as the Democratic nominee? I personally do not want my choices for the next President of the United States narrowed by "political analysts" such as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, et al. Their efforts to simplify the process by eliminating one of the most qualified candidates ever to grace the field is ruining the democratic process for the rest of us. I like all three candidates, but I am disgusted to see that support for Edwards may be slipping simply because the media keeps obsessing over his "failure to win" a primary!!! At this stage of the game, comments like this are ridiculous and irresponsible. In fact, Edwards has "won" 18 delegates so far to Obama's 25 and Clinton's 24. Big deal! I urge you to give democracy a chance, Mr. Bank, and consider the impact of misleading headlines such as yours on the folks out there who are still influenced by the "news media."

Again with the corporate anti-Edwards bias. Stop it, Newsweek--you're losing your credibility

...and Hillary has been SO honest in all of her assertions....please. If you are going to fact check Edwards, fine - Apply the same fact checking to everyone (of course, if you did that you wouldn't have room for anything else in your magazine or on your website).

And WHY is this the only press Edwards gets?? I think the Media Decided that they wanted to cover a Clinton v. Obama race a LONG time ago and so they created the story they wanted to cover. It is getting really scary when the media chooses the people who will run the country and that decision is based on who will sell the most soap. God help us.

...and Hillary Clinton has been just SO Honest...please. If you are going to fact check Edwards, fine - fact check the others too...And why is this the ONLY press Edwards is getting? I think the press really wanted to cover a story about Clinton vs. Obama...so they created it. It's getting a bit scary when the press decides who the candidates are and that determination is made by who will sell the most soap. God help us.

How amusing that big corporate media Newsweek just exposes the plain fact of USA media bias against John Edwards because of his passionate devotion to putting things back on a level playing field in this country against the big money/big profit greed creed that now rules us. Every time I see a media attempt to dump on John Edwards unfairly, I go to his site and donate another $25. Enough already! You media clones do not fool us any longer.

I should point out that your assertion that Edwards' opposition to NAFTA "rings a bit hollow" immediately brings to mind the fact that Barack Obama was not a United States Senator at the time the initial vote to authorize the war was taken; yet he constantly campaigns on his "opposition to the war from the beginning" and not one media outfit, Newsweek included, has claimed that his "pronouncement rings a bit hollow." I oppose the war; I do not dislike Barack Obama. However, as he was not held accountable to the same degree that United States Senators were (though he was an Illinois state senator at the time, his electorate is much smaller, less demographically diverse, and the overall impact of his outspoken opposition was negligible at best,) I feel that the claim is rather spurious.

I should point out that your assertion that Edwards' opposition to NAFTA "rings a bit hollow" immediately brings to mind the fact that Barack Obama was not a United States Senator at the time the initial vote to authorize the war was taken; yet he constantly campaigns on his "opposition to the war from the beginning" and not one media outfit, Newsweek included, has claimed that his "pronouncement rings a bit hollow." I oppose the war; I do not dislike Barack Obama. However, as he was not held accountable to the same degree that United States Senators were (though he was an Illinois state senator at the time, his electorate is much smaller, less demographically diverse, and the overall impact of his outspoken opposition was negligible at best,) I feel that the claim is rather spurious.

Is a poll from a month ago a recent poll? Yes. What's the point in discussing a poll that doesn't even include Edwards? None. What I find interesting is that Edwards was the only candidate to beat all 4 Republicans in a poll - a month later, the media is not even bothering to include him!! Let's see - Major media owned by: Corporations. Edwards: anti-corporate. Which equals virtually no mention of Edwards in any major article (or poll apparently)

I'm currently looking at the poll averages on realclear politics and I don't see Clinton or Obama beating John McCain. And I agree with everyone that you can't exclude Edwards from your latest polling then slam him for a commercial he put out when the statement was indeed true, and before your latest polls. As far as dragging Kucinich into it, that only shows how pathetically biased your coverage has been. I'm surprised you remembered how to spell his name. But it's very convenient when you're trying to find more things wrong. Sad, sad, sad.

I'm looking at realclearpolitics and I frrankly don't see where Clinton or Obama in the poll averages are standing a chance against John McCain. And I heartily agree with everyone, that you can't exclude Edawrds from your polling, then come out with a poll AFTER his commercial and claim he made a false statement,. And suddenly dragging in Kucinich tells all of us how biased you are. I'm surprised you remembered how to spell his name.

I see, we "include" Kucinich when it's convenient, otherwise we write him off. According to the precedent the media has set, there are only 3 candidates in the Democratic party and only 2 who the media is telling us are viable. So based on those perameters Edwards is probably right. The whole transparent evolution on the media's opinions or non-coverage of Edwards is because he wants corporate influence out of Washington. Corporate owned media can't have that can they? And interestingly enough, Edwards was the first candidate to say there would be no corporate influence if elected. Recently, Obama has picked up that mantra. John Edwards is the only candidate who can truly make change. Corporations have influenced every aspect of our administrations for years by dumping large sums of money to candidates who then owe them a big favor. We'll never have health insurance for everyone in this country as long as insurance lobby's are sitting at the table. Same is true with big oil, etc. And since these large corporations are eligible for the wonderful tax cuts this administration has provided them, they're protecting their own interests by covering the candidates they know are least likely to cause waves. They want status quo - I don't. John Edwards 08!

I see, we only include Kucinich when it's convenient. Based on the media's decision that there are only 3 candidates in the Democratic race and only Obama and Clinton get the press his ad is probably right. When he came in second in Iowa it was played down, but when Thompson came out of hybernation it got all kinds of coverage. This article is a dog that won't hunt. John Edwards wants corporate influence out of Washington and corporate run media just can't have that. Even Obama is now saying the same thing with regard to corporate influence that Edwards has said all along.

Ragtop sounds like he's jealous of a man with nice hair! Edwards haircut is nothing compared to Mitt Romney's $1500 facials. In today's media, a candidate has to look decent. As for attacking the black man and the white woman, race or gender is completely irrelevant. CNN is the Clinton News Network and excluded Edwards because hasn't been bought and paid for by the two $100-million corporate-backed candidates. In recent polls by other companies, Edwards is the only candidate who beats all Repubs. Obama only won in Iowa because he brought in supporters from other states to vote. 50% of Americans say they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. When it comes to electability, Edwards is a winner for the Democratic Party. I'll be donating on the 18th!

If the corporate media blackout of John Edwards bothers you as much as it does me, go to John's website on Friday and donate. We are "Going for the Gold" in order to send the media a powerful message.. That message is; "We will not allow you to choose our candidate for us!"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/13/171722/549/52/436243

So, why did CNN not include the candidate that led the last poll. You have just confirmed what many have noticed, a media blackout of Edwards. Nice.