Why have we let the media make this a two-horse race?

I suppose, to a certain extent, we need to be pragmatic.

As much as Dennis Kucinich reflects my personal views and interests, I must admit that Kucinich, already low in the polls, is always going to be scoffed at by much of America. I remember being very upset with John Stewart, a few years ago, when he trashed Kucinich for being unknown and elfish.

So, yes, I am somewhat willing to strike Kucinich and Gravel off the list.

But I am a bit stunned that Democratic Party supporters are letting the media eat up John Edwards.

Of the major candidates, Edwards seems to be the most worker friendly. He's the major candidate who sounds most concerned about what's happening to the American worker. And if you ask me, this is the issue that we MUST win. We MUST reassert ourselves as the party of American labor. And Edwards seems to get that.

And if you ask me, that's why he's getting attacked most. The corporate media doesn't like speeches about "Two Americas." Those are the kind of speeches that lead to people calling for living wages, tougher labor laws, and eventually, the cancellation of trade deals which lower the earning power of American workers.

I have issues with Edwards. He's not as tough-sounding as I think he needs to be (It doesn't need to be warrior tough, just draw the line in the sand tough). And his $400 haircuts, while overblown, are tough to swallow.

But please. Don't do the corporate media any favors by eliminating the one major candidate threatening reign in corporate power and return it to the people.

EM

Edwards.He is indeed the "one major candidate that is threatening to reign in the corporate power and return it to the people".

If the media says it's a two-horse race for long enough, then boom, it's a two-horse race.

In fact, seems to me that the media has pretty much crowned Clinton again.

And your points are well taken indeed...

The corporate media certaily doesn't deserve any favors by us in any way, shape or form!

K&R

:patriot:

Finally learned where the pencil was!
I've been looking all over the bloody page and never could find it. For like a month! I was like, DU is fun, but damn, sometimes I want to say something and have others respond!

Let the dialogue begin!

I love to respond, and to have others talk to me too...

Welcome to DU!

:hug:

That would be GE, Disney, Viacom, CBS, and News Corp.

They will do whatever benefits their parent companies.

and cannot follow the arguments of complex cases. In any competitive situation they will mention only two choices be it a race or a campaign.

But that doesn't relieve them from their responsibility to present all the facts for their readers/listerners/viewers that are not.

He not only supported the Iraq war, he championed it. He also voted for a previous bankruptcy bill, and voted against an amendment to it that would put in an exemption for medical bills. ( http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm , http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107 )

It's not all bad, but he was on the wrong side of many major issues.

It's nice that he's apologized somewhat for being wrong, and he claims to be against all this crap, but that just means the only things we have to judge him on is his rhetoric and the good parts of his senate record (and on the issues where he was good, pretty much everyone else in the field of candidates was just as good or better).

And neither is Clinton's.
Obama doesn't seem like the type who would have voted any differently on Iraq.

I know the rhetoric doesn't fit the record. But at least his close, on the rhetoric.

And that kind of rhetoric, in an election campaign, would be eye-opening, in my opinion.

Keep him in the race

Why would news that is owned by GE, the largest supplier of "defense" equipment, mention any candidate that is anti-war?

The Party dictates.

The Imperial Subjects of Amerika believe and obey. If they have any misgivings, like the Germans before them (us), they sit on them.