From maybe tears to cries of barely discernible racism, both Clinton and Obama have managed to keep themselves and each other top of news, garnering gobs of free airtime and crowding, or attempting to crowd, John Edwards out of the national picture. I believe we're smarter than that, and apparently so do many Nevadans, as reported in this Reno Gazette-Journal blog (h/t GeorgiaWomenVote ):
So, why is Edwards being frozen out of the MSM? On the first new Real Time with Bill Maher we've had in a long time due to the Hollywood writers' strike, it comes up again and again and again, without ever being properly addressed. Bill asked Rolling Stone political reporter Matt Taibbi (Go. Now. Read. Read all the way to the end.), essentially that question with, "I'm very curious - you cover this campaign - you must have seen John Edwards speak - it seems like he has the message that would do well in these times...why isn't John Edwards' message resonating?" Taibbi tried to blame the press as being part of that very privileged class that Edwards is accusing of fattening themselves on money siphoned from the middle class (I'm paraphrasing), but the panel (starting with Mark Cuban) wouldn't let Taibbi answer Bill's question. Taibbi tried again with, "I've seen Edwards a lot on the campaign trail and he does resonate..." before Tony Snow put a stop to it by talking and talking until the change in subject was complete. Again, for a third time the political reporter tried to suggest that Edwards as a candidate has a message that causes some discomfort for a press corps that's living the good life on the backs of the very gluttonous corporations that Edwards is attacking, before, again, Snow changes the subject.
Clinton and Obama, their campaigns rich with corporate/lobbyist dollars to begin with, are also rich in the free airtime that comes from our MSM. Edwards' message isn't accepted or promoted by the MSM because that very press structure that is deciding which parts of this campaign we get to see and hear (see: keeping Kucinich out of the debates) is owned and operated, wholly funded and brought to you by the very corporate structure that Edwards rightly tells us has bloated themselves on the backs of the ordinary folks.
I think Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all fine candidates. I'll be proud to support whichever one of them is nominated, but I believe we're all better off, that we're exposed to a healthier dialogue, the longer the three of them (and Kucinich) remain in the running. I can't help but think that the fact that the establishment media clearly wants to elevate either Clinton or Obama to "front-runner" status, ignoring the one candidate who has the guts to point out the enormous transfer of assets from public coffers as well as ordinary tax payers' pockets to the wealthiest among us, is, in and of itself, reason for me to support that candidate, John Edwards.
The discussion of Edwards starts about four minutes in:
Both the Huckabee and Ron Paul candidacies represent angry grass-roots challenges to the entrenched Republican party apparatus, while the Edwards candidacy is a frank and open attack on his own party's too-cozy relationship with corporate America. These developments signaled a meaningful political phenomenon — widespread voter disgust, not only with the two ruling parties, but with a national political press that smugly enforced the party insiders' stranglehold on the process with its incessant bullying of dissident candidates.But there was no way this genuinely interesting theme was going to make it into mainstream coverage of the campaign heading into the primary season. It was inevitable that different, far stupider story lines would be found to dominate the headlines once the real bullets started flying in Iowa and New Hampshire. And find them we did.
No comments:
Post a Comment