Edwards running an unsuccessful campaign is not due to the media

I'm tired of all the Edwards supporters blaming the media for Edwards' campaign failures. Edwards, for all intents and purposes, should have been the co-frontrunner for the Democratic nomination this election along with Hillary due to the fact that he was well-known after being on Kerry's ticket and being a candidate last election. He has a message that, in theory, all Democrats should embrace.

But they haven't.

His failures have been due to his one-state strategy backfiring. A state where he spent 3 years in. A state a southern boy like John should have won running away against a women senator from New York and a black senator from Obama. Instead, he finished second and his campaign was exposed as being barebones after Iowa.

Edwards was effectively eliminated from the race when he couldn't win the state he lived in for 3 years and didn't have any significant ground game - or hell, much support at all - in any other state.

Look at Huckabee. A guy with no virtually no startup money is now a major power broker in the Republican race. He started off with flat-liners like Tancredo and Hunter. He earned his media coverage. He had a multi-state strategy where he didn't have to rely on a one-state-or-die gimmick campaign. He ran away in Iowa like Edwards SHOULD have.

Blaming the media is just an excuse. Edwards himself is to blame for his unsuccessful campaign up to this point.

I am not saying that Edwards is done. He can win a state or two (likely Oklahoma) and still get 10% of the vote in most states. But he can and should be doing much better. And he isn't. And that's not the media's fault, that is Edwards' fault.

I realize I am going to get major criticism from the radical Edwards supporters on this site, but let's keep it civil.

:rofl:

Yet the media immediately made it "Hillary vs. Obama" and that relegated Edwards to where he is now. On the rethug side the media has always had four candidates it covered and after Huckabee's October rise and before Thompson's recent collapse covered five about equally. Why only 2 for Democrats?

And if he won Iowa, that type of exposure would have been invaluable to him. He should have ran away with Iowa. He didn't.

But what do you expect when you don't win Iowa and you have no support or ground game anywhere? Do you expect the media to fawn over Edwards in that scenario? No, I don't. Edwards strategy was clear from Day One.

you could do great if you have the media and no money.

you could do great if you have money.

Edwards is still doing pretty damn good with no media and only minimal fed financing WHICH IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE FOR ALL CANDIDATES FOR ANY OFFICE.

Get the money out of the elections and back to the people
TV/radio time should be free. We own those airwaves.

Every candidate for every office should have to do it with only fed money

The amount being spent by each, far more than 100 million each, IS OBSCENE

How many people could it feed. How many mortgages could it refinance
How many kids could go to college?

only had 1 job for the last 3 years and that was to win Iowa, the other candidates had other jobs - like in Washington doing the people's work.

Obama came into this race WAY after JE and still managed to out raise and get more support.

Hucklebee, won Iowa with NO money, No massive media coverage and guess what.....he didn't have to live in Iowa to do it.

He built his campaign on a gamble of faulty foundation.

If the house stays in tact, you look good and you possibly sell the house later for more money than you bought it.
Translation: You win Iowa and use that momentum to be competitive in New Hampshire and then win a few states down the line, especially on Super Tuesday, and you have a fighting chance of winning the nomination.

If the house collapses, your investment is wasted.
Translation: If you lose Iowa, you pretty have no chance at the nomination because you didn't try and build a base anywhere else.

yes.

One of which is that Edwards declared for the Presidancy far earlier than Obama or Hillary. So while he's plugging away, the media is speculating on whether the other two will enter the race! They weren't discussing his message. What Iowans were thinking is not for me to know, but both Obama and Hillary are from a state that borders Iowa.

-- announcing early -- essentially continually running for 5 years in some folks minds.

.

he was running for 2+ years before that.

I definitely think the media played a part in where JE is now, but your post contains a lot of truth as well.

That I don't believe. Whether or not the lack of coverage had a -major- impact? I think that's debatable, as election results are interdependent on quite a few factors.

Would have rendered the media advantage that Hillary got irrelevant in Iowa.

We don't need to mention New Hampshire, do we? The media was telling everybody that Obama was going to win NH. But Hillary had a great ground game. She met people. She had a positive impression on people. THat wasn't shown in the polls. She was down by as much as 10 points in certain polls. But she won the primary in that state anyways.

Certainly I'm not trying to argue that Edwards got as much coverage as Hillary, he didn't, but Edwards had his chance to prove everybody wrong and he didn't. Obama had a chance to prove everybody wrong and he did. He won Iowa.

His success so far has nothing at all to do with the media hype of the history making race "between a black man and a woman"! :sarcasm:

With a great message and being a brilliant orator. He has appealled to the base that Edwards should have. The base that is sick and tired of the Clintons dominating the Democratic party.

waiting for 5700 college kids to show up who never showed.

And since you are a new poster here, I hope you didnt just come here
to promote promote promote...we have enough of those here already

Koolaid drinkers

I'm a democrat who will make my choice on Feb 5 when I vote in New Jersey. I am not here to promote, I am here to have honest discussion.

all of JRE's ideas ad nauseum...and if anyone doubts what I say, all they have to do is look back at when he was running against Kerry et al in the last election and you will see he has been on the Hope and Change bandwagon a lot longer than HRC and BO. PLUS when he WAS getting coverage early on and the HRC/BO camps saw that....well then, silly me, they all got on the hope and change bandwagon and tweaked it to fit themselves. However, they both lack the substance of JRE and again, you NEVER heard HRC speak of poverty or BO for that matter either until they (or thier paid minions) noticed JRE was getting coverage for it.

But if anything showed at all last night it was this - - neither BO or HRC is fit to lead if they erupt into a hissy spit fit when someone name calls. One of them should have just simply stated you're entitled to your opinion and moved on...but no....they made idiots out of themselves and the democratic party by fighting about slum lords and WalMart boards. dumb move to let your emotions get the best of ya -

just ask Georgie Bush when he doesn't get his way and their arguing was a mirror of what we have in the WH now. Petulant looks, shrill voices...yepper, just like George. I bet he was proud to see that if one of them does get elected, his legacy of being a spoiled whiny brat will live on in the WH.

No thanks to either of them until they grow up and learn to not speak before thinking. Leaders do that, wannabes don't.

Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth won't get either of them elected and if anyone of you thinks for one moment Romney, Ghouliani, McCain et al didn't note that...shame on you.

Next debate bewteen repukes and dems, you can bet repukes will push buttons and if last night was any indication of how HRC and BO will respond....keep it.

of the media exposure - do you think he would get that kind of media exposure if he was just another white guy - like say oh I don't know - Edwards - Biden - Dodd - Kucinich... and even Richardson who looks like another white guy... the reason he has been doing so well IS the media exposure - the fact is that the media has made this a two person race since Iowa - nobody wants to vote for the "loser" I swear to God I heard someone on a call in show today from CA who LOVES Edwards but if he thinks Obama is going to win he is going to vote for him in the primary - something those of us who have supported Kucinich know all too well - he can't win so I won't vote for him - oh if I don't vote for him he can't win - it is ridiculous - the media is picking our candidates sure as shit - they did in 2004 just ask Howard Dean - and they will this year too.

Clinton and Obama got the media exposure because they are two very important firsts - Clinton had HUGE HUGE HUGE gigantic name recognition which is why she was considered a shoe in for so long and up until fairly recently - most people are not like the political junkies at DU or other sites - they don't have a fucking clue what these candidates stand for for the most part - do you think most of Obama's base could tell you jack shit about him - hope hope hope whatever - most people vote for "personality" reasons - its a big fat popularity contest and if the media tells us this one is popular then I guess he or she is - this whole primary process is a complete joke...

I disagree.

Civil enough for you?

However, you left out an astronomically relevant factor. This is a historical primary because the first woman and the first African-American man to ever run with any chance whatsoever of being nominated are in the race.

Because the only legitimate white male contender for the nomination?

You know full well that is not the case. The media is lapping up the "historical" aspect of the first legitimate woman and the first legitimate African-American candidates.

If we had a stronger white male candidate, like John Kerry, we would be in a 3 way race between Obama, Hillary and Kerry. It has nothing to do with black vs. female.

candidate who happens to be a former first lady make 2004's also ran look a little less interesting. Edwards is old news in comparison. It's not that the media doesn't like John Edwards; they like him just fine. He's just not as interesting as Obama and Clinton.

You want to see someone the media doesn't like, try Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel or Ron Paul.

Southern white male is not such an advantage. Carter was the first President elected from the South in over 100 years; Johnson was re-elected after being elected VP and Texas is not really the South, Clinton is from Arkansas which is the South.

"Southern white men" is one of the few "minorities" that many people find P.C. to use as the target of jokes that would be far off limits if the target was most any other group. This allows over-the-top things like O'Donnell's HuffPost hit piece.

to give up on their cherished conspiracy theories.

Don't know if you support anyone, but do you think they've been "fair and balanced" to Hillary and Barak, Dennis, Biden, Dodd?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from Yahoo. http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkwqIw5ZHPKEAxCVXNyoA?p=dead+enders&y=Search&fr=ytff4-msgr&ei=UTF-8

Nice try.

This has nothing to do with the debate. Edwards won. This is irrelevant to the debate.

When did I ever bring up the debate?

This will tell us which category of Edwards bashers to place you in.

It's to engage in a unbiased synopsis of his campaign. I'm just being honest here.

There seemed to be very clear bias in your post -- "radical Edwards supporters" sounding just like Limbaugh's "radical left
Democrats" which he categorizes as anyone who doesn't believe in shooting the poor. You sound like the guy who accused me
earlier in the month of supporting Edwards because he thinks he's good-looking (personally, I think John looks a little like
a horse, but he's got the heart of a thoroughbred and that's all that matters to me).

If you're going to attack John, at least be honest about it. And why not (instead of attacking John) merely explain why
you consider your candidate better.

Edwards supporters are very good with facts and figures, so be ready to dance.

So I didn't pull out the Hillites or Obamabots references.

Like I have said many times, I don't support a specific candidate.

And you can't deny that Edwards doesn't have his own fair share of radical supporters who will insult anybody who doesn't agree with him.

Not saying Hillary and Obama don't, but I wasn't talking about Hillary or Obama in this thread. I was talking about John.

Yes, we have radical supporters.

What is a less-radical supporter, someone who merely sits on the sidelines?

He's giving up on Florida and moving on.

He just think he doesn't have a chance in Florida and he'd rather spend money on campaigning in the Super Tuesday states.

...and has even cut off money for press travel.

Last I heard (today) he and others had good hopes of doing well in Florida.
No mention of his bailing out or giving up. There are a lot of Evangelicals in FL and I can't imagine that scenario, however I am aware he has money problems.

So please re-post that this is indeed true or is it hearsay? Just wondering? :shrug: Not that I really care.

They said he was on a shoestring budget, even cutting funds for press travel, and probably moving on to other Super Tuesday states.

After Thompson dropped out, some talking heads (probably Hardball) suggested Huckabee might do better in Florida now and may rethink leaving.

I thought you meant it was a more formal decision...rather than speculation.

Actually I'd really be disappointed if he dropped out because I think he will be easier to defeat than John McCain...so I guess I do care.

Means we will probable see McCain on the Republican ticket

Edheads. I like that. That's a brilliant nickname. I think I'll use it.

:eyes:

To claim certainty that the media were not at all a factor in Edwards's defeat is simply ridiculous--in something as complex as mass human behavior, tying down a single cause or excluding an important factor is extremely difficult. Only through lazy reasoning would someone claim:

Edwards lost solely because the media hate/fear him!

Edwards's loss had nothing to do with any coverage disparity!

Without coverage, it's hard to build interest. Without interest, it's hard to get coverage.

Frankly, John Edwards was uninteresting from the beginning. His economic message didn't resonate with anyone; even his NH and IA supporters didn't seem to love it, given the exit polling. His '04 position as fresh-faced outsider was soundly taken by Obama, and Hillary had the Democratic establishment support locked up from the beginning. Edwards was, in many ways, only an inferior version of Obama.

He spoke well, but not as well as Obama. He inspired crowds, but not as well as Obama. He represented change, but not to the extent Obama did. Clinton had the inside track, and Obama out-competed him for the outside track. He decided to pin his hopes on an Iowa win; there his progressive populism might have a chance of distinguishing his message from the others. He failed to get that win, and so he didn't get the momentum he would have needed to win any other states.

There was a coverage disparity, but it was not an especially unfair one. Rather, it was to be expected of a candidate that failed to weave a message that could stand up against the quasi-incumbent Clinton and the insurgent postpartisan Obama.

you're quite a piece of work. :)

I'm well aware that's ridiculously idealistic in this environment, but you do describe the "narrative," "character-driven" coverage style of these campaigns well.

and Huckabee has a built-in crowd with the evangelicals. He doesn't need media exposure.

But don't kid yourself that the media loves the ratings and the advertising dollars it gets when it spends all it's time talking about the Clintons, the first black candidate, is there racism? Is there sexism?

You are giving him too little credit.

Why didn't Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson automatically win the true conservative vote?

You have to go out and work and build your base. To say that he had a built-in crowd is disingenious at best.

Much more exciting and sensational, to their audience and what the media covers best/most.

Just sayin...

not criticizing, you make valid points, just wanting some feedback.

I supported JE in 2003 and in 2004.. and support him now, but just have a strange feeling I somehow can't explain properly. Like somehow, JE was ahead of his time in 2003 and maybe has just missed a window of opportunity. I think it has a lot to do with timing, or maybe with Fate. I don't think its entirely his fault. I don't think its entirely the media. Just wondering what you think he could have done, if anything, to change the landscape.

I just think that Edwards' big chance was in 2004 when he ran as the non-establishment candidate against Kerry. That was his window of opportunity. Unfortunately, he ran into a strong foe who the establishment loved and he couldn't compete.

This election cycle Edwards is a known commodity. Everybody knows what he stands for. He still couldn't win the state he canvassed for years. That tells me alot about what people think about his message. Edwards had maybe the best ground game in that state, and he still couldn't win.

coming from the South, I know there was good support for him down here.

So I'm not so sure.

from the South, where we love John :-)

He refused to go along with Kerry's message (or so I've read), preferring to stick with his themes instead of compromising his image by using Kerry's. He also balked at the idea of playing public attack dog, as that would have hurt his sunny image (ironic, since that went out the window for this campaign).

Rather than present a mixed message to the cameras, the Kerry campaign relegated him to whistle-stop tours. I know I recall being disappointed that more wasn't being done with him.

I think an Edwards/Gephardt ticket could have won. On the other hand, maybe it would have lost badly. No way to know.

Where is his support in the South this election? Last election as a presidential candidate? Last election as Kerry's VP?

Iowa? South Carolina? Oklahoma? Is that it?

was. And I know because I worked that campaign every day.

What were you doing during the 2004 campaign?

Kerry was not the draw? The guy got 251 electoral votes without any support or any help whatsoever from his vice presidental choice. His vice president didn't help any swing states or southern states whatsoever turn blue.

I was working for Kerry's campaign too.

I'd disagree. Edwards was very much an establishment candidate, though the establishment ended up preferring Kerry over him, and the true non-establishment candidate (actually, a very pro establishment candidate himself, though painted otherwise in the media) Howard Dean. Edwards got tons of positive press after Iowa in 2004 and could not parlay it into a nomination.

I do largely agree with your assessment in the second paragraph.

1. Focus nationally. The days when you could turn an Iowa win into a victory parade may be over; Huckabee fell apart darn quickly, and I think Edwards would have even with an Iowa win.

2. Mix up the message more. His stumps became predictable; he gave the same speech after New Hampshire as he did after Iowa as he did every day on the campaign trail. There's an advantage to pounding on a message, but you won't win over any new fence-sitters the second time they hear you say the exact same thing.

3. Change. That should have been his motto from the beginning. Obama made it his buzzword early, and Edwards looked like an also-ran the minute he started to talk about "real change."

4. Better early debate performances. His early strategy was a strange exceptionalism--whether on lobbyist money, or on financing, or on any number of issues, it was "I'm the only pure Democrat." When you're a minority candidate in a field where everyone likes their choices, claiming you're different from the rest can be a tricky proposition. If you claim you're different, bad things will happen. You need to show you're different, and show that in positive--not negative--ways. (As an aside, #2 was a problem here as well; he hammered the same points regardless of the questions being asked.)

5. His fundamental working-class fighter message was flawed. Frankly, most Americans are sick of fighting--and if they're spoiling for a battle, well, nobody can go to the mat like a Clinton. He was at his absolute best when he was talking about healthcare and ethics.

6. As a continuation of 5, Edwards turned his message around in too many ways too quickly. He went (successfully) for netroots support with his repudiation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, and other such issues. However, while people have short memories for details, they have long memories for perceptions. Edwards was, in 2004, presented a safe centrist Democrat. His turn as a peacenik leftist conflicted with that earlier message, and conflicted slightly with his working-class fighter image. He was at his least effective when he was lambasting Clinton and Obama for having records similar to his own.

So what would I have recommended? Stay on message, but don't sound like a broken record. Stay positive throughout. Go to the netroots, but use them to start building a national campaign; they have little money and are few in number, but they can be dedicated organizers. Make healthcare and the economy the centers of your campaign. Take a mantra of "change" from the beginning, explain that you intend to focus government on Americans, not on political battles. Stay positive. And see if you can't provoke a back-and-forth between you and Clinton in early December; if you can make it look one-sided (with her doing the attacking), that will legitimize you while causing her to hurt herself.

I also think his constant "mill worker" references have hurt him too. The message behind that reference is good, but he overuses the phrase.

Trying to build a base in New Hampshire would have not been a bad idea. Spend less time in Iowa and more time in New Hampshire, and you could have built the momentum from a second place finish in Iowa to a first or second place finish in New Hampshire. He would have been in a much better position as he moved to Nevada and South Carolina too.

(I'm putting it in all caps so you'll know which thread I mean...lol).

This is a thoughtful post, one which I will return to in the morning to read with fresh eyes.

But the one thing you mention several times is regarding the "change" message.

Perhaps someone could research who used this first? I honestly have the impression John was using it first...that was one of the things we Edwards supporters were chuckling about being usurped earlier on. It snowballed and suddenly everyone was an agent of change.

Now, certainly, the other two candidates are representing historic change in the form of gender and race. But John's been talking about change for quite a while.

have a read:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3234

And the reasons for that are OBVIOUS to anyone who's been cognizant the past 15 years.

That said, it was a gamble to put so much effort into Iowa. And he handed his opponents a lot of gratuitous ammunition early on with the haircut, house and hedge fund. Not to mention his Senate voting record.

Unfortunately, image is more important than issues; American politics is about perception- which these days is more like American Idol, horseracing and fundraising than what the candidate actually proposes to do for the country.

Which of course brings us back to the corporate media once again- the entity that bears by far the lion's share of blame for the sorry state America finds itself in.

and it failed. As I said, a state that he canvassed for close to 3 years he couldn't win. That told the media alot about his campaign.

He wins Iowa and his media coverage doubles, triples, hell it may even have quadrupled. But he didn't win. And the media saw that his campaign was Iowa and not much else.

He did not campaign in Iowa for 3 years. Someone posted a chart from DailyKos which showed that he spent maybe 1-2 weeks more there than the other candidates. Dodd moved there and had his kid enrolled in school. Edwards has been doing quite a few other things since 2004. And for some of the time he wasn't even in this country, as he has been traveling to Africa and other places.

zalinda

He was the only candidate who campaigned there the two years previous to that- and did a lot of it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber8jan08,1,5346679.story?track=rss

Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates
AP
“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.

By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 8, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.<snip>

The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.

Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.<snip>

And, that is how the Chamber of Commerce likes it, for now, because they do not realize they are guppies surrounded in a pond full of sharks.

what they don't seem to realize is that they are being screwed, just like the rest of us, so that the 'sharks' (aka big fish in Bush's/the GOP's pond) can take them (and, their tax dollars) for a ride. I thought the implication was clear -- but, maybe not. BTW - I am a small business owner and the member of our CoC.

And, I have this argument often with the membership ... they don't seem to understand that for every $1 tax cut or 'incentive' they get, they pay 10 or more times as much to give some shark millions, if not billions, in Gov't contract $$s.

I was responding to Redstate Red Herring, but then read your reply as well.

Given your viewpoint as a small business owner, do you really think most small business people fear talk of reining in corporate greed (Enrons, Halliburtons)?

Edwards has made it clear it's corporate excess and greed, not corporations (of any size), that are responsible for so much negative impact on our society.

Or, are you saying that whatever the chamber says, filters down and goes out as a commandment? If so, do you find members actually pay attention closely?

Sorry for the 20 questions. LOL. Thanks! :hi:

'drank the Kool Aid' in 2000 and now they are so busy trying to keep their businesses afloat that they have not had time to re-evaluate the pile o crap they were sold, while some are just too proud to admit they might have been wrong (they voted Bush 2004 - while many others sat out). But, most are hurting and blame it on whoever they didn't support - it's easier/less painful that way or are just so disenfranchised they don't care anymore and just want to find a way to make ends meet.

:hi:

More or less. Local CoC were mostly the local merchants association, often with better business bureau-type functions, did a couple of events, maybe a monthly reception, and organized the Christmas parade.

not only supported local events like the 4th of July/Christmas parade, but also assisted startup businesses and coalesced to be stronger as a voice for small businesses at the state and federal level. That was, how it was, until 2000 (the death knell) and in part ever since the 'contract with Amerika'.

for the simple fact that he is not a woman and he is not black. His race and gender go against him in this election cycle.

It's just that they don't give him the automatic advantage that they would have in previous years. For the first time in our history, a black candidate and a woman candidate are not at a gross disadvantage against a white male candidate. Unitil this campaign, if the top three candidates were a John Edwards, a black man and a white woman, John Edwards would have been the only one with any chance at all to win. This time around, the three candidates started out roughly in the same position, but Edwards eventually fell behind.

Of course, the playing field is not yet even. Edwards STILL has had the advantage, just by virtue of being a white male in an arena in which nothing but white men had ever prevailed - and in which the non-white male candidates must consistently prove that, their race and gender not withstanding, they deserve to be in the ring. Edwards has never had to prove that his race and gender don't make unelectable. He doesn't have every word parsed and every move studied to determine whether he is too white or not white enough or too masculine or not masculine enough to be an acceptable candidate for president.

In fact, it's laughable to claim that a white man still does not have an advantage in a presidential race. Just like in every other area of our society, when blacks and women are given a fair shake, when they have a full opportunity to compete fairly, some blacks and women will do better than some white men. That has always pissed off some of the white men who get left behind and sometimes leads to cries of their being "disadvantaged because I'm a white man!" But they aren't being disadvantaged at all. They just aren't getting the automatic head start, leg up and extra points that their white skin and Y chromosome previously got them and to which they felt entitled to expect.

There are several reasons why John Edwards has not done better in this race. His being a white male is not one of them.

have gotten special media attention because of their gender and race? I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do believe that the "firstness" of Hillary and Barack have brought more attention onto their campaigns. What about their policies make them more viable candidates than John Edwards? Not much that I can see.

But much of that additional media attention has been focused on negative aspects of those characteristics - specifically, speculation about whether their gender and race make them unelectable - and has not necessarily been been to their advantage. Media coverage and media scrutiny are two very different things.

Obama and Clinton have gotten an enormous amount scrutiny and lots of coverage. John Edwards has gotten little scrutiny and lots of coverage. Cancelling out the scrutiny, Clinton and Obama have probably still got more - but not substantially more - coverage than Edwards. But that does not automatically translate into the reason for his poor showing in the polls. I agree with some other posters that he and his team have not been effective in developing their ground game, something that has little to do with the amount of national media coverage he has gotten.

Kucinich handed Obama Iowa.

Chalk it up to the Clinton-Obama-Clinton-Obama-Clinton-Obama fest. It's as simple as that. If Americans hear that Edwards isn't a viable candidate long enough they'll start to believe it. It's pretty basic.

one basket. It proved to not be a very wise strategy.