Why does MSM seem to hate John Edwards?

Anyone at all...

the media hates any Dem candidates with a real chance of winning.

He is proposing economic and trade policy that will benefit the American middle and lower classes and not just the rich and powerful corporations that own the media.

unlike our front runner who takes money from Rupert Murdoch and FOX, Edwards led the fight refusing to participate in a FOX moderated and produced Debate. He also refuses to appear on FOX. It also appears The GE Network has ties to Hill as well, so they wouldn't be fans of Edwards either.

I will be seeing him next weekend at a town hall in Reno Nv. Any ideas for questions?

:rofl:

where they'll get gasoline, and where they'll get hot meals when Edwards has them running combat missions in Iraq out of Kuwait.

The same way we got access to those items in any distant campaign. But at leastwe will no longer be "occupiers and invaders".We would be giving the Iraqis a chance to defend themselves.We ought not to have permanent occupation staus.

Edwards is a huge hypocrite.
Clinton: $20,000. Edwards $500,000.00

Murdoch's News Corp: Edwards benefits from book deal with company

http://edwardstracker.blogspot.com/2007/08/murdochs-news-corp-edwards-benefits.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is fighting back against Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his criticism of the media empire, pointing out that the 2004 vice presidential nominee was paid $500,000 by one of its companies.

HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., paid the former North Carolina senator a $500,000 advance for his book, "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The Edwards campaign said the money was donated to charity and that another $300,000 for expenses was used to pay researchers and other costs to write the book.

The figures were reported by the Murdoch-owned New York Post on Friday, a day after Edwards challenged his rivals to return political donations from News Corp. executives. Edwards said the Fox News Channel, owned by News Corp., has a right-wing bias and "the time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party."

Edwards' criticism was chiefly aimed at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has taken more than $20,000 in donations from Murdoch and other News Corp. executives.

Kate's money was an editing fee. Harper Collins just happens to be owned a If you can't see the difference it is sad.BTW, Edwards contributed his book money to charity. And Hill's campaign contribution went to her campaign. Another huge differnce.You are also not mentioning the fundraiser Rupert threw for her.

Neither candidate put the money in their pocket. Both of them used it to accomplish goals.

The only difference is that Edwards likes to point fingers about stuff he does himself.

"personal" contribution from Murdoch, not "earned income" from a publishing house.And you don't see a difference? Edwards has not taken any campaign contributions from Murdoch.

drove as hard a bargain as he could, that's got to read very, very well in his CV!

Since discussions of class are essentially forbidden in mainstream television, they have no way of framing this issue. There eyes glaze over. It bores them. Discussions of poverty also contradict the aspirational nature of television advertising. Advertising sells us the message there's a world of opportunity out there. The poverty issues sullies that message.

My two cents! :)

All of the MSM outlets are all owned by the same four or five multimedia conglomerate companies and they are ALL tied in with our corporo-fascist powers that be. Bottom line is they are all scared to death of Edwards and actively working to shut down his message because he won't play their game. I'm counting on the good caucus-goers of Iowa to change all that. If he wins Iowa-- and I think he can.... and will win-- then we got us a different ball game.

John Edwards would be a President of the People, and FOR the People of this country. His heart belongs to the little guy and he would radically change the status quo in Washington and they all know it. He and Kucinich would both be phenomenal presidents, but Edwards can win it. I'd be willing to bet Kucinich would be his Secretary of State or in a position of importance in an Edwards administration. Then he could have Gore as his Secretary of Energy.

That's just me talking of course, but a girl can dream.....

Nicely done.

How he would stand up for our Constitution and how he would begin to reverse the damage done by the Bush administration. As much as I know Edwards wants to stand up for the middle class, I want to know what he would do to shut down the torture prisons and return us to the founding principles of this nation. I don't hear him speak enough about that.

Then come back and tell us what he says.

And ty for the reply.

:shrug:

He has made some enemies in corporate places by winning in court... winning for the little guy and making corporate entities who behave badly pay dearly for the vile actions.

Edwards is a potential threat, if he's allowed to get momentum.

... as poor, working class, and middle Americans are getting ground to dust
by the policies Edwards wants to change.

:kick:

they seem to hate Gore, Bill, Hillary(unless it suits the game plan otherwise), DK etc.? He's in good company. Pick a reason from all the good things about Dems and all about the lousy bad things about rotten and bogus American journalism.

Concentrated effort by the media depends on the individual threat to their masters.

That JE and DK get the brunt of the negative press. I find it telling.

and military industrial complex was scared shitless of JFK..they fear this southern white man who is an accomplished attorney ,..who is smart..and sophisticated, and has his fingers on the pulse of what has gone so wrong..in this nation..he knows who pulls the strings..the bildebergs, the trilateral group, the CFR and he is not a regular in their camps..after running for VP he knows who owns who..and he scares the bee gee bees out of the power hungry filth that makes up washington!

He knows the "octopus"...

fly

Whether we are willing to admit it or not: as the party is now
structured, only a DLCer can be our candidate for the POTUS.
Conventional Wisdom tells the Centrist can best appeal to both
GOP and Democrats. Whether, for example, Obama identifies
himself as a Centrist, I have no clue. If you note how he
is running, he takes Centrist Positions on Issues that matter.
I do not know if Hilary would identify herself as a Centrist.
Her Husband was one of the founders of DLC, it is assumed she
is DLC, Centrist. The Media regards the DLC as the authority
in Party. Therefore, there is almost a collaboration(intentional
or not) that any candidate who does not meet the approval of
DLC--is not going to be treated fairly by the Media. The DLC
believes in the idea of Elite Ruling Class. Populism is verboten.
Edwards is running as populist, therefore he is breaking all the
rules. The truth is the TELEVISION Media influence elections
beyond belief.

IMO, Edwards is the one candidate running as a true Democrat.
There is no calling for real Democrats by the powers that be.

put forward by the county and state party..

yes the progressives wiped the the smile off of the DLC!

fly

He appeals to Republicans. He's not a DLCer and he's not a centrist, but I'll be damned if I haven't encountered a whole lot of Republicans who have said they would have voted for him if it had been an Edwards/Kerry ticket. For that reason and more, John Edwards should be the one that all of us progressives rally around. He can win Iowa and he will be the voice of the People. What more could we ask for???

It's DO or DIE right about now....

Edwards is a liar and a phony.

But the media isn't after Edwards. They are after Hillary and use Edwards and his lies and distortions to get her.

No dirt or scandals.

The guy was picked clean by the Jesse Helms machine and Karl Rove, and the only thing they can diss the guy about is his hair. That's got to tell you something.

The MSM will only be interested in him if a sex scandal happens.

Hillary Clinton will divide the left and center and mobilize every backwoods, hellfahr 'n' brimstone rapture-right nutcase out from under their porch steps in droves for the sole purpose of "stickin' it to them anti-Murkin commeh Clintons once and fer all!!!!". That's pretty much why they're marginalizing a populist candidate and propping up the one who'll play ball.

Candidates that cater to the PEOPLE'S needs aren't part of their plan. Their plan is to guide the voters, through massive publicity, polls and albeit temporary praise, to their shining beacon known as Madam Windsock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4rqysXGj0o

they fear him even more.

Howard Dean said the same thing.

"Are media out to get John Edwards?"
Give me a break about John Edwards' pricey haircut, mansion, lecture fees and the rest. The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we've long known -- that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear -- that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.

Is it hypocritical for the former Senator to base a presidential campaign on alleviating poverty while building himself a sprawling mansion? Perhaps. But isn't that preferable to all the millionaire candidates who neither talk about nor care about the poor? Elite media seem more comfortable with millionaire politicians who identify with their class -- and half of all U.S. senators are millionaires.

Trust me when I say I don't know many millionaires. Of course I don't know many presidential candidates either (except my friend Dennis Kucinich, whose net worth in 2004 was reported to be below $32,000.)


more:
http://www.alternet.org/story/52764/

Almost 20 years ago, as GOP began to roll back taxes on corporations ....
Mario Cuomo -- speech/C-span --- commented that if we wanted THEN to minimally increase taxes on corporations . . . "we'd probably have to call out the militia."

There's a lot at stake for these people --- and it's a violent crowd.

I hope Democrats here understand that --- !!!

As Mark Crispin Miller --- author, Professor --- has said often:
"These people will as soon kill you as look at you . . . "

...and they really, really hate populists.