No surprise here:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG8CQO0&show_article=1

He was the least offensive of the liberals.

No surprise here:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG8CQO0&show_article=1

He was the least offensive of the liberals.

It's a shame. Similar to Kucinich, I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I feel he deserved better treatment by the media. He didn't seem to get enough time in the debates.

It's a shame. Similar to Kucinich, I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I feel he deserved better treatment by the media. He didn't seem to get enough time in the debates.

The media knew he couldn't win so they focused on the big 2. Plus his hypocrisy cost him dearly. He was courting the poor vote while living in a 28,000 square foot mansion and getting $1200 haircuts.:rolleyes:

I like him personally. Goodbye silky pony/breck girl. :(

It's an interesting question, and one that can be applied to more than just Edwards: is it that he couldn't win so the media didn't give him more time, or is it the media didn't give him more time so he couldn't win?

He did after all get second place in the first primary.

It's an interesting question, and one that can be applied to more than just Edwards: is it that he couldn't win so the media didn't give him more time, or is it the media didn't give him more time so he couldn't win? He did after all get second place in the first primary.

Good point. I think it works both ways. The media has focused on McCain (because they know he will lose), Clinton, Obama, and left Romney on his own. :(

The majority of former Edwards voters will probably go to Obama :)

The majority of former Edwards voters will probably go to Obama :)

Mmmmmm... I don't know about that. I think they'll split pretty evenly between Obama and Clinton.

Though Florida isn't necessarily a litmus test how the rest of the race will go, I'm still betting on a Clinton win in the Democratic primary. We'll see.

~String

You mention Florida, why is that? Why not mention Iowa or South Carolina? Obama didn't campaign in Florida, and that's his strength. Clinton didn't campaign in Florida, and that's her weakness - she rode through on name recognition.

You mention Florida, why is that? Why not mention Iowa or South Carolina? Obama didn't campaign in Florida, and that's his strength. Clinton didn't campaign in Florida, and that's her weakness - she rode through on name recognition.

Because, in the larger states, I think that Clinton simply has the advantage: bigger states are harder to campaign in, more entrenched in the party mechanics (Clinton dominated) and generally lack two things that help Obama: high percentage of agriculture-to-heavy industry and high percentage of black voters. In cases where one or two of those are the dominant factor, Obama has the upper-hand, in cases where they are not, Clinton has the upper-hand.

Big states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Throw in the rest of the New England states and the Pacific Coast states and you have a solid Clinton win. The only BIG state that I think Obama might take is Texas-- the rest are Clinton's.

~String

Because, in the larger states, I think that Clinton simply has the advantage: bigger states are harder to campaign in, more entrenched in the party mechanics (Clinton dominated) and generally lack two things that help Obama: high percentage of agriculture-to-heavy industry and high percentage of black voters. In cases where one or two of those are the dominant factor, Obama has the upper-hand, in cases where they are not, Clinton has the upper-hand.

Big states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Throw in the rest of the New England states and the Pacific Coast states and you have a solid Clinton win. The only BIG state that I think Obama might take is Texas-- the rest are Clinton's.

~String

illinois is mostly rural farm land

:confused: IL has one of the biggest/most popular cities in the country: Chicago. It has thousands of suburbs, villages, and cities. Much of the west and south is farmland. For how beautiful/wonderful it is, it is still a blue state. :(

Edwards' demise proves what the previous 30 years of politics has shown: You can't campaign on class warfare.

Edwards' demise proves what the previous 30 years of politics has shown: You can't campaign on class warfare. LOL! It's not class warfare when the upper class wins ?

The owners of the major media are in the class that stood to take a (small) hit if Edwards won.

I don't think I ever saw a point comparison of the health care proposals of the major Dem candidates, on any major media political outlet. Did anyone else?

We see the more left and the more libertarian candidates getting poorer media coverage, especially of their strenghs. Compare Giuliani's coverage with Edwards', early on. Paul's and Kucinich's with Huckabee's.

Anybody recall Howard Dean's slide in favorable coverage - which bottomed, not started, with the famous scream ? It began when he said that he would oppose deregulation of media ownership, allowing single corporations to own many - even most - radio, TV, and print news outlets in one market. Once he said that, his health care proposals (from a medical doctor with governing experience) were yesterday's oblique reference.

Plus Edwards is a tad weenie.

Count isn't saying that class warfare doesn't exist but that you can't win a campaign running on it.

:confused: IL has one of the biggest/most popular cities in the country: Chicago. It has thousands of suburbs, villages, and cities. Much of the west and south is farmland. For how beautiful/wonderful it is, it is still a blue state. :(

chicago is the only area of the state that is blue

Mmmmmm... I don't know about that. I think they'll split pretty evenly between Obama and Clinton.

Though Florida isn't necessarily a litmus test how the rest of the race will go, I'm still betting on a Clinton win in the Democratic primary. We'll see.

~String

When I saw this discussed early on, probably over a month ago, people said that Hillary wasn't really anyone's second choice. For some reason, that seems to generally fit, imo. But that just refers to the immediate period following Edwards' drop. I think that once the nature of the race changes into a two candidate show there is no telling how things will go.

Count isn't saying that class warfare doesn't exist but that you can't win a campaign running on it. And I am saying that someone running on "trickle down" tax breaks is running on class warfare just as much as Edwards was. The label is affixed by others - Edwards did not get to say whether he was running on class warfare or not.

So let's rephrase: if the rightyranters say you are running on class warfare, you can't win. Is that true ? And if it is, what are the implications ?

Edwards would have made a decent president...as will a few others still in the running. I can't stand Clinton as a person but she'll be fine in the job. I'm not sure about Obama. No negatives or positives about the fellow. He seems more of a media creation than anything else. People project on him whatever they want.

On the Rep side Romney and McCain will also make decent presidents. Giuliani might have been good as a 'get the job done' in tough times president.

The president is going to be Clnton, Obama, Romney or McCain. I'd chose any one of them over Bush or Kerry in 2004. The Demo and Rep sides have better quality candidates than in the last couple decades.