CNN

EDWARDS OVER OBAMA

THE MEDIA WONT REPORT IT SO I WILL

Davis became Rezko's personal financial partner in slum-redevelopment deals, which were then backed by State Senator Obama.

In one of those deals, after both Obama and Davis had left the law firm, Obama wrote letters to state and city housing officials supporting the proposed Cottage View Terrace apartments, a project run by Tony Rezko and Allison S. Davis. The deal cost taxpayers $14 million and the partners got $855,000 in fees. Completed in 2002, the project is now managed by Davis's son Cullen Davis.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2007 that Cottage View Terrace was originally supposed to be managed by Davis's longtime business partner, William Moorehead, until Davis's son was substituted. Moorehead was sent to prison in 2007 for stealing more than $1 million from the public housing projects he managed, including two he co-owned with Allison S. Davis.

- The University of Chicago and the CBOT -

Edwards is right. I've been watching these last few weeks in amazement as story after story only mentioned Obama and Clinton. I thought maybe he might try to bring it up at the debate somehow. I'm afraid it may be too late now.

He would make a fantastic president.

This article has over 700 comments--The only CNN article with more comments that I see is an article about Huckabee. CNN should mention bloggers' comments on the air and the articles that are getting the most response. Do not let the media and a few states, with considerable small populations, determine the elections. Americans want choice!!!!!!

I do not think that the over 700 comments are posted.

Again on CNN's web page only Obama mentioned on political page. KEEP THIS BLOG ALIVE-post on CNN' main web page or else the political page-Please CNN be fair in coverage!!!!! This blog is difficult to find---–Anybody have access to John Edward's campaign people-are they seeing this blog????

Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."

These are some of the things we want!

ll the candidates have their good and bad points. The problem is, nobody is REALLY seeing/hearing about them. Edwards is being ridiculed for stating a fact – they are NOT covering all candidates equally – especially in the Democratic race. Edwards was a viable choice 7 years ago, why is he mostly ignored now? Those in the media should ask relevant questions and report the facts for ALL candidates. Period. Not push their own agenda, push one candidate over another every other day, or create news stories where there are none. I'm sick of soundbites intended to inflame and promote "news" that doesn't exist except in a few small minds.

The questions and answers in the debates have been mostly worthless in terms of telling us what the candidates will actually DO should they get elected. Does Clinton like pearls or diamonds? Please, get real. Not allowing Obama
his question? Unprofessional. Comments about the looks of Clinton's daughter, or stating that McCain is a lost cause because he is carrying a piece of luggage? These have no place in news commentary. Edwards is "angry"? Maybe he has a right to be. I sure am.

Priorities of the issues – all the issues – is vital to choosing a candidate. Don't use smokescreens to divert from the truly crucial issues. While I admit it's a legitimate issue of importance in some states, the 15 minutes spent talking about licenses for illegal immigrants (that was a Republican debate) when most people across the nation are much more worried about war, paying bills, health care, etc., just angered me.

I want to know a candidates position and a plan for action on issues that matter every single day. Let the candidates tell us in their own words, in detail. I'm sick of hearing the word "change", without any substance. I want to know HOW a candidate proposes to do that. Also, the fact is that no matter who gets elected, that person must still work with congress to get any proposal through to law. Perhaps the media might actually remind the candidates and the voters of that occasionally, lest we all get caught up in the mentality of expecting miracles. Compromise is a reality. Let each candidate tell me about their plans/positions on issues that matter, including education, social security, outsourcing, health care, abortion, guns, Iraq, Iran, the Patriot Act, etc., and how they expect to work with and unite both congress and the nation to put their ideas into action.

I'm sick of the bickering, which the media only fuels. I want a good president, and I want to make sure that the best person wins, not the best personality. Personally, I'm sad to see Biden and Richardson out of the running, they made the debates more interesting. I think when a candidate gets in the race, they should plan for at least a few states - especially in light of the obvious undecisiveness out there among voters.

Al Gore, where are you when we need you?

The next president should be chosen by the people not the media. Give John Edwards Equal Time.

I didn't read all of the posts. At the risk of repeating here........ The whole media thing boils down to the fairness in coverage as relates to canidates progress and the fact is that Edwards is only trailing Obama by 6 delegates. That is tight! The Republican Canidates that are NOT even on the chart get far more coverage. It's a shut out. As a columnist wrote... Edwards is pissing off all the RIGHT people.
The media is all Entertainment News. GO EDWARDS!

Please post my last post--10:37 am, Jan 19

I would love to vote Democratic but if Obama or Clinton are the choices I will vote Republican (middle class support is missing in Obama/Clinton)---Democratic party are you listening??
(My prior post was not posted because it criticized the media for unfair lack of coverage of Edwards.)

Who is this guy...the media never brings him up. Is he running for president.

Is this Americas man who is fighting for Middle class americans with $500 haircuts.

Dear Wolf,

I have been following the debates very closely, the Cliton campaign has been on a rampage there, trying to say how much experience Hillary has to run the country. Her husband has foreshadowed her campaign as he runs from state to state representing her. Has anybody asked if Bill Cliton is running for a third term as president, which is against the Constitution?

shaking my head since 2000, for the choice on our current president.
it's happening again!! i don't see any of these candidates capable of fixing the damage that has already been done way too deep.
but if i had to make a selection , i'll bite my lip and say: JOHN EDWADS. he's got a KENNEDY vision and the power of hope.

I AGREE THAT SEN. EDWARDS GETS LITTLE COVERAGE, BUT THEN AGAIN HE IS SO FAR BEHIND IN THE POLLS IM SURE THATS WHY IT IS THE CASE. HE IS CONSTANTLY SAYING HE'S COMPETITIVE IN THESE RACES WHEN ACTUALLY HE IS NOT.

Could CNN please do a little more coverage of Obama? There was a little space devoted to other candidates. I am sure this was an oversight. Also, for 12 hours today, on CNN TV his name was mentioned more times than I could count. Why do the CNN execs simply turn the web and network over to him – save some of us some trying to get a balanced coverage.

Gee, too bad this election is about personalities and celebrity power, and not about issues..... Wouldn't THAT be nice for a change?

If this were about the issues, John Edwards would be winning this going away. He has led on all the major issues; the other two have followed. His plans are more detailed and far less beholden to big interests (like both Obama's & Hillary's, Obama's in particular).

When are Americans going to wake the hell up and vote based on issues and ability to lead, not on fancy rhetoric and name recognition? For example, when polled, huge numbers of Obama's supporters don't know his stands on issues. They are following him based on some vague, lofty rhetoric. And many Hillary supporters are voting for her because she's Bill's wife. Or they're voting based on Obama being black and Clinton being a woman. It's ridiculous. American voters are lazy and/or uninformed.

After tomorrow, Edwards knows he'll have to call it quits. His populist "progressive" stance was purely for expediency. There was never anything real or sincere about it. He thought that seizing the leftist populist ground would be his best strategy this time around, and normally it would have been in this anti-establishment (anti-Bush) electorate but it turned out to be a bad call. He did not foresee nor count on the MSM adoration, especially by CNN, of Obama and the free pass Obama has been given throughout. This spelt the death of Edwards. Ironically, Edwards candidacy in the end only helped Obama and Hillary both. But at last good riddance to the most insincere, egotistical and unacceptable candidate the US has seen in a long time. Bye bye Edwards and never come back!

I'm just tired of the blue tie, that's all.

Hmm, so "John Edwards has been running for president" since 2004? Well, sure, except for those six months he spent in the hospital holding his wife's hand while she had chemotherapy .. and all that time he spent starting a Poverty Research Center, and a College for Everyone program in rural North Carolina, and OneCorps community service chapters around the nation, and traveling throughout Appalachia and in Africa on humanitarian ventures, and ...

Oh, what's the use. Lynn, I'm afraid you are a perfect example of the consequences of a media blackout. I bet you know that Obama used to be a "community organizer," don't you? (You probably don't know that his political career has been funded largely by Wall Street firms that surely don't want a true reformer like Edwards in power ...) You probably still believe that other media fantasy that Edwards "lived" in Iowa for four years before the caucuses; in reality, he spent fewer days there in 2007 than most other candidates, including the completely invisible Chris Dodd.

Vote Edwards the man that introudeced all the programs that both parties are talking about, and pray that the media will start to give him credit, and air time.

Reporters ponder why the citizens of the US do not make platform an important issue. I ask, "Why wound anyone worry about issues, when you cannot believe a word that is uttered? Lack of trust worthiness, dedication to pork and self interests is primary. We cannot worry about issues, just which person is less likely to steal away our lands and freedoms. My son lives in the "Romney manditory insurance state". The bill gives full power to the Insurance Companies to decide that his family of four policy must cost him $1000 per month because "THEY" decide he can afford it.
There is no choice? Where is the logic?
How can anyone afford that assessment on top of house payments, mtg taxes, fuel costs. I think Edwards made a great point in the NV debates when he asked Hillary and Obama what they thought the Insurance companies expected for thier contributions. It shows in Massachusetts and it will be everyones problem is they do not realize what power our representatives are granting to the Insurance companies.
Here in WV they assess road tolls to upkeep the highway. But misappropriation of those funds made it priority for the Dems to increase fuel taxes for road repair the first week they were in power. Why don't they demand repayment of misappropriated funds?
We all know the answer. The only issue on our minds is how do we survive, despite the corruption in our capitals? It seems to me that someone would realize we have just about reached our saturation point for corruption. We are a sinking ship and we are soon going down if someone does not step up to the plate and "DEMAND" accountablility.
When Democrates can look into the camera with a straight face and say, the Billions of dollars in pork attached to a bill is nothing, then complain Social Security is failing, we need a reality check.
And while I am at it! Why does no one ask the Clintons about their Camen Is accounts or their investments in the Domican Republic?

Vote Edwards the man that introudeced all the programs that both parties are talking about,and pray that the media will start to give him some credit,and air time

Vote Edwards my fellow Americans its the only chance you have to save the soul of this once great nation.

Barack Obama just lost my vote after that video he did in Nevada. I was leaning very heavily toward Hillary Clinton, but I've been keeping myself open until I actually vote in the primary on Feb 5th. That video was so bad, and did not have one shred of information that was informative, that the only conclusion I can come away with is that he was behaving childish. Certainly not like someone I want to be running this country. I feel so let down by him. Hillary Clinton has my vote and full support now.

No matter who comes out as the Democratic nominee, my vote is with Edwards. Last time I checked we were living in a democracy, not a Clinton/Bush monarchy. And Obama falls flat. The fact that the media continues to overlook Edwards and frame the primary as a 2 person race is bogus. I've seen John speak in person and he's really inspiring.

This time around I am voting for who I believe in, even if I have to write his name on the ballot myself.

Watch Edwards speaking at the LCV in Los Angeles and tell me he isn't ready to lead our country to "greener" pastures.

http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/lcv/

John Edwards has been running for President every since he and John Kerry lost 4 years ago. He sounds like a broken record with his "Big Fish" "Little Fish" I'm going to fight for you speeches. Americans as individuals need to fight for themselves. Get a good education, get married before you have kids, and make your own lot in life. There will always be the poor but some folks make their lives a lot worse than what they need to be. I support Sen. Obama! John Edwards is a "light weight". He can not answer a question without going into his "I'm going to fight for you" speech.

There is a network called C-span, C-span 2, C-span.org ,campaign network....
This network is a public service provided by your cable and satellite companies.
C-span's Washington Journal along with their campaign coverage have not been fair to John Edwards. The lead host is among the most unfair of all the host , Steve Scully. I wonder why Brian Lamb doesn't intervene.
During this campaign they have for a big part of their coverage been no better than the rest of the media in their dealing with the Edwards campaign. This makes me doubly sick.

I wonder if this will be posted. I really do.

I agree that there is not enough coverage for all the candidates, I'm an Obama suporter, but I do believe all of them should get equal time from the media.

I've always heard that it is not smart to start a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

I posted but it's still awaiting moderation. Is there a problem with my comments?

Is CNN and other media outlets oblivious to this fact. No! I think they are deliberately and unfairly giving John Edwards low coverage. The guy beats Hillary Clinton in Iowa and everyone is still carrying on about Obama and Hillary. I know its a free press and the media is free to report on what it wants, but come on guys, give John Edwards equal coverage. He is in this race and I think with some more coverage, he can pull it off and win the nomination od the Democratic Party. Do it and let's see what happens! The selection of a Party's candidates should be made by the citizens, not the media. Let it be a fair and unbias process!!

Whether you support Edwards or support having this be a three way race decided by the voters, not the media, donate today to John Edwards at his website...there is a grassroots effort today to raise $7 million in one day for John to garner some much deserved media attention and force them to cover this as the three way race it is!

So this is how he is getting media coverage. I love how slick the move was. But bravo. By the way, where's the media coverage bashing Ron Paul! Gulf.

For the poster who asked "Who Cares" – there are more than 300 posts on this issue, so clearly a lot of people do. If you can't be bothered understanding all the issues involved – whether you're an Edwards supporter or just an American – please don't vote. You will just vote for whomever Fox News tells you to without thinking for yourself. What's amazing is that by my best guesstimate, about 85 percent of posters here agree with the point of Edwards' argument, whether they support him or not. Gosh, you think CNN and MSNBC might notice.

I am and have been an Edwards supporter and I just wish he would have said this earlier – but hey, better late than never. It takes all I have to not throw things at my TV when I watch the fawning and exclusive coverage of the two "fronterunners." But Edwards will keep going and hopefully he will actually get some much deserved coverage. If he's doing as well as he is without a fair shake in the media, imagine how his numbers can improve if he gets any actual coverage.

And for those of you who think he should drop out if he doesn't win SC – please read the great post by AW in Santo Domingo about why he will still matter – both for his delegates and for his much-needed voice of reason and of the people (you remember us, right CNN?). He will wield a lot of power.

Who is controlling the media? Why are we being given such narrow and misleading news coverage of the presidential campaign? Edwards is 100% right on virtually eveything he says including his complaints about the media. I've very disappointed with CNN.

Re: the filthy rich reference, why should John Edwards get punished for acheiving the American Dream? He worked his way through a state college and made millions by defending people who didn't have a voice against monied interests. I say he deserves the rewards for working his butt off! We should be glad he's willing to work his butt off for the American people. What is the current salary of the United States president? $200K? He certainly isn't pursuing the office for monetary gain. He is doing so to represent the voiceless, disappearing middle class. Good grief!! Wake up America.

I agree with Molly. John Edwards is not the first choice of corporations, including those that own the national media. He does not take money from PACs and so has less to spend on media ads. The national media did their best to keep the ugly bickering between Obama and Clinton going. By now, after hearing the stump speeches over and over in four different states, they are tired of the issues and want to cover a good fight instead. That's what you get from people who have transformed news into entertainment to feed their bottom lines. Thank heaven for the internet where people can get their own information without these pathetic gatekeepers. Fortunately, Nevada is a caucus state, and John Edwards does best when he gets to talk and listen to the people directly. Even if he wins in Nevada and does well in South Carolina, the media will continue to ignore him, but they cannot take those delegates away. Just keep working, John. I cannot wait to cast my vote for you this November. There is no candidate running who is better prepared to help us take our country back.

I agree completely with John Edwards. Although he's isn't my first choice, I firmly believe the media is biased in that it virtually ignores him, while vilifying Hillary and treating Barack with "kid gloves." Enough already. Time for the media to report the news again, not make it!

Jasmine:

You consider Edwards 'filthy rich,' and perhaps he is now, but, he wasn't always. He was raised blue-collar. His father worked in a mill, and John was a first-generation college student. He was worked hard to get where he is today. Do you think that Hillary and Obama are not filthy rich? I have news for you–they are! And, they always have been. I want a president who has felt my financial woes.

First, to Jasmine: John Edwards is, to use your words "Filthy rich" because he did it the old-fashioned way, he earned it! Which is more than you can say for all the other candidates, who inherited their wealth from Daddy.

Secondly, Edwards has spent his life fighting the huge corperations that presently control every aspect of our lives including the government and the media. After all , who the hell do you think owns all the media outlets that filter the news to you? The same corporations who selected (note I didn't say elected) G.W. Bush as president for the last 7 years! And G.W. has done a fine job of making them all billions at our expense, in tax dollars, quality of life and the deaths of our children.

Thirdly, these corporations know that John Edwards would be the biggest threat to them ensconcing another Republican corporate lackey in White House and continuing their booming business. They also know that this country is not yet ready to elect a woman or a black man to the presidency. It's a sad reality but your a liar if you dont, deep down, acknowledge that it's true.

This is why only Hillary and Obama get priority coverage. They know that neither one of them has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, so vote for John Edwards. He' the only one who has a prayer.

You've see it every single day for a couple of months now – storys about Obama and Clinton. Almost no mention of Edwards. Once in a blue moon, an article on him. It's a shame that the media has hamstrung his campaign relative to the two glitzy candidates. And still he is getting significant portions of the vote, with so little media exposure. Clearly the best choice for a new direction. A direct repudiation of Republicanism and an elevation of American ideals.

I DON'T want to compromise with the awful people who have run roughshod and laughing (all the way to the bank) over the middle and working classes - not to mention the Constitution! - for going on 8 years now. If compromise is Obama's idea of "change," he won't get anywhere. We all know they will laugh behind their hands while they dream up their next set of election-stealing tricks. Edwards would set the tone, investigate the abuses of the last 8 years and get more like-minded Democrats elected to Congress.

B
Blue Mississippi

Since my previous attempt at posting this is still awaiting moderation (despite the fact that I tried to post it over 15 hours ago), I am trying to post again. Sorry if this appears twice.

Considering the fact that Edwards is the only candidate that stands a chance at beating a republican in the general election, all democrats should be infuriated at the media's treatment of his candidacy. When the democrat candidates were pitted against the republican candidates in the polls, Edwards was the only one that won. Obama's anti-gun policy and his association with a radical church will prevent him from winning in a general election. As for Hillary, you either love her or you hate her, and there are many more that hate her in this nation than those that love her. I am voting for who I think will win a general election and that person is John Edwards. I know that we love to see milestones happen (a female candidate or an African-American candidate), but I don't want those milestones to happen at the expense of this general election. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want another 8 years of a republican White House!

Besides, I don't know how many of you out there make six figures, but I sure don't! Edwards is the only candidate who is capable of empathizing with the working class. Since when has Hillary or Obama had to work in order to put food on the table or has worried over whether or not they will be able to pay for a doctor's appointment. This nation has real problems and needs a president with real solutions.

I lost faith in the media specially cnn since the war in Iraq. I excepted better from Cnn. Fox lies to us and Cnn keeps us in the dark, when it comes to facts. If you want to get real facts go to Link TV.

It just figures that both Cnn & Fox decided who we the people should vote for. You all have it wrong. Just give us the facts about each candidate and let us be the judge. Some of the questions you all ask on the debates are so stupid.

Edwards is right on this one.

You the media do not have the guts to ask President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and all the other members of the administration the tough questions.

I guess I do not blame you, for you do not want to be fired.

I truly wished you had the guts to give us the straight facts like Link TV does.

I also wish that all the candidates running for President , did not promise us everything. All I ask is that they level with us and tell us the real facts. We will not have better health insurance or lower prices on medicine untill we lower the profit the CEO's and the stock holders get.

This is for Lou Dobbs. The way you have approach the illegal immigration issue has cause the KKK and all the other hate groups to increase their membership. It also has cause the Hispanics that are citizens of this U.S. of America to be treated bad by this hate groups and also regular Anglo's . Here in Texas we have just barely gotton over the mis-treatment by Anglos, and because of your show, it has started again. My father was born in Texas in 1901 and his mother was also born in Texas. We have been in Texas for over 200 hundred years.

Lou Dobbs, you do not have the guts to go after the employers the same way you do against the poor illegal, by that I mean show the faces of this employers over and over again. Go after the CEO who steal from their Companies. Like the CEO of United Health Care Ins. CO. Show his face day in and day out.
.

Edwards is right on our NEWS/MEDIA is totally out of hand....check out how the media treated Romney in regards to lobbists & before that the Clintons over the so called racial remarks & how they were trying to tell everyone how to vote in the NH primary and after the Iowa primary they had Hillary's campaign buried, & Bill Clinton's so called outburst to a reporter if you listened to it, it was nothing the press made it out to be like all hell broke loose ...if the people of this nation do not start standing up to the media they are going to be like the Bush administration and act as though they can do as they please...

Jacob from Savannah, GA, it is people like you why the country is the way it is. That's why we are so well loved around the world. Jacob, you should really watch Cris Rock's S N L piece on the election, it was meant for you baby. The media has been unfair for many years, it interesting that Johnny boy just notice it. His wife is ill, no disrespect, he should concentrate on her, and spending time with her and their two small children, and leave politics fpr a while. He is young, he will get his chance again, after President Barack Obama two terms are up. Idiot, from Savannah, GA, get his name right, some people are slow, but that's are right, you will have eight years to get use to it.

All those people writing that Edwards is "whining" and other snarky remarks are obviously writing from ignorance.

I will repeat, IGNORANCE.

When Nevada polls show a "dead heat" between the three candidates and the only coverage is of Obama and Clinton, then there is an obvious selectivity occurring.

So, all you Hillary and Barack supporters, you don't care if the media favors your candidate of choice? You don't care if the coverage slights another candidate, so long as you are on the path to winning? That is how the politics of "unity," "hope," and "experience" play out? That's the kind of America you want?

Wanting an electorate more informed about Britney Spears than your candidate's positions is an ideologically bankrupt way to win - what hypocrites!

Edwards thought the race would between him and Hilary only. I guess he wanted to take his rightful status quo place. Well the tables are turned. Also, Obama had to work harder than both candidates because he is black. So Edwards is acting like a crybaby........wow, I guess too much change is not good.

Obama 2008

Thank you OhioMom, for your well-reasoned and insightful argument for a JRE nomination.

And to Omar, with regard to your advice to Edwards (DO what is best for the DNC.), I'd like to ask "When is the DNC going to do what is best for regular Americans?"

Certainly not during another Clinton administration...

>Write bigger checks and maybe the media will follow you more. Sorry to say it, but that seemes to be the only way to get heard (and heard fairly) around here.

No one mentions that Edward beat Clinton in Iowa while spending a third of what either Clinton or Obama spent to "buy" their votes. As a taxpayer, I want a Commander in Chief who is prudent with his money.

If we elect Obama or Clinton, the Dems will be no better than their counterpart in Mitt Romney, who is throwing money around like a drunken sailor in his efforts to secure the presidency.

Do we want a president who is a spendthrift or do we want a president who will work hard and spend wisely? Edwards is campaigning using hard work and shoe leather it takes him to connect with voters – county by county and state by state.

I'm and Iowan with a print background, and I was nauseous at the sight of the expensive mailers that clogged by mailbox from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Checkbook campaigning is easy and paper is just great, but Edwards was HERE. In person and taking his voice to the people.

Moderate please post this there nothing worng with it even if you disagree with my comments.

Jasmine

Not true he not getting fair coverage.We arent complaining We are just telling the media to give him fair coverage even if we are not voting for him or not.I dont know weather to agree with some of these guys saying its because of profits that the media making and that why they are not giving him his fair share because they are afraid if he gets in the whitehouse the media profits will go down I aint syaing I am agreeing with it or disagree with it.But the reason why people are upset and now John Edwards is because Fred Thompson and Rudy are getting more media coverage than he is and the republican side none of the media saying itsa two man race.The funny thing isfred Thompson and rudy are doign worser than ron paul and huckabee on the republican side but the media does'nt care they rather do media coverage on those instead of ron paul. Its just the world we live in the media has the right to tell us what to believe instead of telling us the facts and being fair and etc.Because like it or not we all have freedom of speech even the media.

Although I WILL BE VOTING FOR OBAMA, Edwards needs to get fair press. One of the great things about this country if freedom of choice, but if we do not really know what our choices are, then where is the freedom in that.

ps: and Obama/Edwards ticket is GREAT!!!!

Both Edwards and Kucinich have been jerked around.

I'm ecstatic Edwards is making an issue out of it. Just one more example of someone not fearful about standing up for what's Right!

I am from north of the border (Canada for those of you who couldn't figure it out)and if I could only vote in your sad example of a country, it would be for John Edwards – he is genuine – he is definitely the people's president – CNN and other news networks need to give all candidates equal time – no matter where they rank in the polls.

Again it shows that in the U.S. it's all about the dollar and whoever has the most wins – money talks (doesn't make sense sometimes – just listen to Hilary).

Good luck John – there are some of us north of the border that wished you were running here! You are a breath of fresh air!

If you're being reasonable, it's not possible to deny that more media coverage is focused on Obama and Clinton. Well, of course it is. People forget what the media is all about: getting attention. It's not there to be fair, and it's not there to identify the best candidate for us. Who can argue that the potential of having our first African American president or our first female president isn't a great story? Not only a great story, but a monumental one, and an historic one. No, that's where the media is going to go, because that's a much bigger story than any of the actual issues at this point.

It's up to US, the public, to recognize this, keep it from getting out of proportion, and focus past it to *what really matters.* What really matters is that the people of this country have suffered long enough, and only the Democratic party is going to put a stop to that right now. And in polls, it is Edwards who has consistently shown up as capable of defeating the Republican candidates. THAT is what is going to matter come November.

There actually *is* an amazing story about the Edwards campaign, if only the media would notice. He is running virtually equal to them for all intents and purposes, *despite* having significantly less media coverage, and *despite* significantly less funding. (And point out the integrity of a man who is unwilling to accept funds from lobbyists, no matter how badly needed, in order to ensure he remains accountable to the people, and not special interest groups.) But look at that – even with a significantly unfair disadvantage, Edwards is hanging in there. What would he be doing if given equal time??? Running away with it. If more people got more exposure to HIS message and plans, this race would already be over.

Donnie1's comment needs only one correction. The last sentence should read "Same old whining".
-–
Donnie1 January 18, 2008 9:28 am ET

John is right, but where was he when other candidates were being left behind and he was not. The media focused on those three and left Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and two others out and I sure didn't see John complaining then. Same old story – when it happens to someone else too bad, when it happens to you it's not right.
-–

Edwards and his whiney supporters say only the top two candidates ever get talked about? What about the Republicans? ALL their candidates get talked about. The Edwards camp is great at giving excuses, but wont address the REASON. JOHN EDWARDS is the reason his campaign is sinking.

He's a big fat NOBODY. He had his 15 minutes of fame in 2004.

He's NOT a politician. Never was. Never will be.

He's just a filthy rich, aimless soul, trying something new and different. What will his folly be next year?

Check out his pathetic blog a/k/a chatroom. What a buch of inarticulate, boring whiners. Good for a laugh though.

of course nobody is talking about why the CORPORATE MEDIA MACHINE isn't pushing Edwards like they are Hillary/Obama – because he is the only candidate talking straight up about corporate influence in our government!

They don't want anyone listening to him, and I think it is evident.

They are already in the pockets of the other two dem. candidates – and probably all the repubs too. Edwards is the only one standing for the people and against corporate interests.

Why the media isn't discussing John Edwards is fairly obvious. He is focusing upon the unbridled power of corporations in present day America and our media outlets are controlled by corporate media monopolies. It's in their own best interests to keep his campaign off the television and out of the newspapers.

Hillary Clinton is a friend of corporate America (except for some insurance companies she says and some drug companies). She has said she's willing to compromise on reforming how they do business and their systematic elimination of the middle class.

John Edwards has said he won't compromise. If he's elected it won't be as easy for media giants to buy up all the radio stations and newspapers. He'll resist it. And that is why they are not covering him. And it's exactly why we should never allowed them to monopolize the media in the United States. It suppresses freedom of expression.

I am a middle class american , Yes there is still a middle class, at least for the time being. I live in North Carolina, have served in the United States Air Force and lived in numerousstates throughout our country. I personally feel that the media, CNN included is doing this country a great injustice by not covering all candidates equally. I agree with Edwards and his campaign that the media is not giving him equal media coverage. I know and most americans know it is because Edwards is against Corporate lobbyest controlling what happens in our government and what happens to the citizens of our country. Any american citizen can see that large corporations are not concerned with what happens to the average citizen. They are only concerned with the bottom line (money). They are the reason that we are in the economic condition we are in today. They are sending our jobs, security etc abroad to beef up their bank accounts and bottom line. It is the job of those we elect to watch out for the upper class, middle class, and lower class citizens, not just those who have the big bucks. This country was built on the backs of those americans who worked hard, worked in factories, fields, etc. not those who pushed paper. Shame on you american media. I say let the people hear all of the candidates and what they intend to do to bring our country back from the depths that the current administration have lowered us to. My mind is open to all candidates at this point, all I ask is to let all americans here all of the candidates and make our own decisions. As journalist this should be your wish and duty also. This is what democracy is all about. Open your eyes to allow america to see blue skies again. Our countries flag contains the colors red white and blue, not red white and green, the color of money.
Thank You,

Ben Gregory
American Citizen

Democrats should know in electability polls*, Edwards beats ALL current republican candidates! The other Democratic candidates do not. This is not something the mainstream press will tell you. They don't want you to get on the candidate bandwagon that will ensure a Democratic WIN in 2008! This country cannot withstand another republican in the White House.

I was an Edwards supporter long before this poll was taken. This convinced me.

*www,firedoglake.com

For those that think Edwards is whining like he's in first grade . . . give me a break!

Two recent examples from NBC:
1. Tim Russert said after the recent NBC debate that there were 2 1/2 viable democratic candidates, referring to Edwards as 1/2 a viable candidate, even though a post debate focus group declared him the winner of the debate.
2. Joe in the Morning (MSNBC) just this morning released the poll numbers for Nevada and only listed Obama and Clinton. Their support totalled 70%. No mention that Edwards was even running. Where was the other 30%? Sound like a close race to me, well within the margin of error.

Its about time John steps up to the media. Its clear they only want 2 candidates for the dems right now. If you want to see something interesting go to youtube and type in "what about john", just a clip showing how undecided nevada voters reacted to the debate in vegas. John is electable, unlike clinton who would polarize the country and most likely lose to McCain...who by the way i think is the best republican candidate. Go John!

Edwards is my candidate and the media continues to infuriate me by ignoring his energy, polices and outlook, spending all their time with the same ole HC/BO, black man / white woman.
Let the news programs you watch/listen to know you want full and balanced coverage of all the major candidates.

I agree. John Edwards has been largely ignorerd by the media. He is the only candidate with a plan on his website to stop the genocide in Darfur. I'm a single mom living in the inner city of Cleveland, so I'm well aware of the problems in this country; however, nothing going on here is as bad as what's happening there.
If Clinton and Obama continue to attack each other instead of the issues, Edwards just might come out on top.

Edwards has definitely been given the short end of the stick. Obama, Clinton, yada, yada, yada. God I hate the Obama/Clinton nit picking and truth bending. Hillary dahling stop touting 30+ years, when did you actually get elected to office again – that's the number you use honey.

And Obama, you're starting to sound like a scripted Washington politician. Get back to your real voice.

I'm voting for Edwards. If the system works correctly, and enough us believe our vote CAN make a difference, then we need to vote for who we really want – no matter where they are positioned in the polls.

It is astounding to hear that Obama worships Ronald Reagan – a President who sent a New Bible with an autographed greetings to Ayotullah Koemani who humiliated our country for so long with our hostages. Reagan is popular among Republicans, not among all Americans.. Obama wants to pander for Republican votes, a shameful calculation. His judgment is poor.

He panders to African-American Black voters, when he is NOT representing their historical legacy of slavery and segregation in America. He was born into a Kenyan Muslim and a White Kansas woman, Ann. His biological father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. abandoned him at the age of 2, and was raised by another Indonesian Muslim stepfather Lolo till age 10 in Indonesia. Later, he came back to Hawaii to be admitted to a top tier School with the influence of his white grandparents Stanely and Madalyn. Certainly, he does not belong to the heritage of Blacks who suffered for generation of discrimination and hardship.

Obama is charming and speaks well. But his experience is very skinny that shows up in his judgments and he will be easily defeated by the Republicans this Fall.

So, Democrats, don't waste your votes. Go for a candidate who has experience and a track record who can Deliver Real Change – that is, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clearly, she is a moderate Centrist when comparing to Edwards and Obama who are bleeding liberals, who will NOT get elected.

Experience and Electability, Stupid.

Maybe the press is sick of hearing the words "big corporations" and "greed" every time he speaks – he sounds like a broken record. And for him to say "Washington is broken" – well why didn't he stay in the Senate and try to "fix" it? He was a Senator too, so that made him part of the problem he's griping about.

Vote for the ONLY person who can take our country back and lead on day 1.

HILLARY CLINTON 2008

I totally agree! He's been screwed by the media over and over again! He's exactly what this country needs. Because he speaks out against large corporations (of which CNN is) they are afraid of him and therefore he gets almost no coverage. How about covering all of the candidates?

It's so apparent how he's been snubbed by the media! He's the voice of the little guy and you might be surprised – America's Rising!!

Edwards gets $400.00 haircuts, was a lawyer who made his money by fighting against big business because they pay the most and he got 30-40% of their pain. The media ignores Ron Paul as well, they trashed Hillary and had dug her grave before New Hampshire. The media proclaimed Obama the great hope when "O" brought attention to him. Maybe the idiots who give their opinions all day would be best just reporting the news and putting their opinions in a dark warm smelly place they belong!

He got tons of coverage when he was attacking Clinton. Media wants the story....which is expected. Clinton and Obama attack each other daily so more stories go to the. According to the media you do nothing interesting daily so no media coverage for you. I don't mind...you should have not tried to come back.

John Edwards the man with the plan and the man who can! John Edwards speaks very plain so that all can understand, doesn't use play words to entice, but good strong words that resonates with the people.

It is very obvious that M$M has shunned John Edwards for the one they want as President, namely Hillary and Obama. Why is this? IMO, it's because the Republicans can outwit and outfox and outvote them. The Repubs cannot do this with John Edwards nor can the media.

Please M$M, John Edwards is not your enemy, give him his time in the spot light and just watch the praise that will come your way.

Shame on all of those who hold themselves out to be "political experts." When you do small focus groups (like after the Nevada debate) the majority believe John Edwards has the best message. The problem is that the media wants to focus on a Clinton or Obama for the historical value. Too bad! John Edwards doesn't get the votes in part because of the not so subtle media influence it has on public thought. The "reporters" are failing to report the real thoughts of the people. These news shows are nothing more than entertainment magazines brought to life via cables and satellites. Why not put the focus on what the people care about – not your need to drive the historical factor to the voting booth?

The media want Obama as a candidate. He makes for good copy. The Repubicans can then pull the race card to destroy him before the elections. That way, the boys can stay in the lucrative business of selling military weapons for their oil wars. That's the only way the Republicans have a chance. Enough of the testosterone! Democracy is broken!

Which Republican candidate likens himself to a racist former governor of Arizona? Which candidate was quoted in a YouTube ad suggesting a vote for Romney was as good as a vote for Hitler? Which candidate is actually running on the slogan "Don’t Trust Whitey!" Which candidate called Hillary a lesbian, on camera!!

Flip those national campaigns the proverbial finger and join the brave candidates of the Arizona Primary in their bold experiment in politics.

CNN is dismissing this story. Google this name, and get the real scoop on Arizona's primary.

Project White House 08

"Thank you for your support, citizens"

By continually failing to acknowledge that there are THREE people running to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States with little to no mention of John Edwards, you do your well-educated, hungry-for-accurate-information listeners a disservice. You are not allowing your viewers to hear the complete and accurate picture of this three-person race so that they can decide for themselves who should be elected.

Bias has no place in journalism. We get enough of that from within our government.

CNN should take the lead in this regard – stop discriminating against John Edwards by calling this a "two-person" race and let the American public decide who they want to be the next president.

Thank you.

This is true the media in our nation has turned the politics into a circus if you are not in the #1 spot you had better just hang it up look what they done to Hillary after Iowa. Look what they have done to Edwards after NH...They want you to vote for who they say is ahead in their incorrect polls...I hope the candidates can all get in to an agreement where they will not grant the media interviews or to only the local media where they are campaigning..

I agree with Edwards–he has been ignored by the media. With the coverage focused on Obama/Clinton, it does lead voters to believe that Edwards is NOT a viable candidate that they should focus on. As a candidate with very little media coverage, his campaign has had to fund almost all of his coverage and have not beneffited from the free coverage the other two have received. Is this a media news ratings issue or the media influencing the outcome?

John Edwards is right on the money with this one! I have followed this race very closely; watched every debate, and dispite (or in spite) of Edwards support , the press, including CNN, would have us believe that there are only two leading candidates. It seems that the token mention he does get is of little importance when weighed against the constant drumbeat of free publicity given Clinto and Obama.

John Edwards IS the best candidate running. I've heard members of the media say that they are perfectly aware of this huge oversight. And the reason is because a woman running for president and a black guy running for president are much better stories. That's what people want to see. Seeing another white guy up there is not newsworthy.

I for one think that Edwards is the best candidate for a lot of different reasons (i.e. humors his audiences with specifics, is the only Democratic candidate that has been polled to beat EVERY Republican in the general election, appeals to moderates, charismatic, intelligent, does not take money from special interests, truly cares about the middle class, great hair, etc. etc. etc.). What else do people want?

The media is punishing Edwards for his corporate greed stance. Corporate America is scared if Edwards were to win, they would have to treat their employees better. And they would have to pay their fair share of taxes.

I agree, it is unjust the way the media is giving all of the time to Clinton and Obama. Let us address campaing reform. I think all campaign fundraising should be abolished – each should be given an equal amount of time and specific place to speak, no more give me money and I will lie to you – tell you what you want to hear until I get into office. Here is your chance – let us know what you have to say. Maybe then we would not have only the money hungry silver spooned pharmacutical lobbiest loving few running our country. Give the Americans who really care about our citizens a chance to run and make this country what it used to be GREAT!

John is right, but where was he when other candidates were being left behind and he was not. The media focused on those three and left Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and two others out and I sure didn't see John complaining then. Same old story – when it happens to someone else too bad, when it happens to you it's not right.

Wow! if media moguls view this discussion, they will note that interest in Edwards is strong. He is so on point, his message has been co-opted by all candidates. He speaks forcefully and consistently against special interests groups, all to the nations good. But, the media is a special interest group, isn't it? So there we have it.

Thank all you good people for supporting our home grown advocate!

Marvel

I don't think that the traditional (corporate) want either Obama or Clinton to be president. They want the candidate that will be easiest for the Republican party to beat in the National election. At this point, the polls show that that would be Obama. The traditional media is pushing for further consolidation and mega money for those at the top. They won't get it with Democrats controlling the government. They do not want Edwards message to get through because he has the best chance to win in the National. He would even pull in much of the working class republican base with his message.

I'm glad John finally spoke up about this. I wish he would've done it sooner, but at least he finally did. We need someone in office who will work hard to change things in this country. I believe John is the best person to do it. Shame on CNN and all the other media for not allowing his message to be heard by more Americans.

Edwards 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This story is the truth. Edwards has done just as well as all of those running in the Republican field, and even has more money than most of the Republicans frontrunners, yet the media wants to only cover Obama and Clinton. It's unacceptable and just plain wrong. I think Corporate America is simply afriad of what a REAL Democrat would do in Oval office. I'm tired of all these half-hearted Democrats who say one thing to get elected and then don't follow through. Heck, Bill Clinton wouldn't even sign the Kyoto Treaty. How Democratic is that?

It is about Time, you think GE Executives are going to cover a guy who wants to end the corporate dominance of US Foreign and Domestic Policy. I hope Edwards wins in Nevada and Wins eberywhere else, he consistently polls the best against any of the Republicans. There is a reason why the corporatists won't cover him, it is he will stand up to them and even the playing field. GO JOHN, hit'em HARD.

Obama and Edwards are having to compete with each other and seven others.
The competion includes Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, CNN, NBC, Fox News, ABC,
far and away the best campaigns are coming from these two candidates on the democratic side one has to remember the money men in charge of the news media are Republican and as such are promoting Clinton they know that the best chance of a Republican president is for Clinton to become the Democratic nominee.

It has been apparent for a long time that the mainstream media has not been covering John Edwards. When Edwards came in second and Clinton third in Iowa, all the stories were about Obama and Cinton. No major outlets discussed the Edwards' accomplishment. It is shameful that the media is freezing out a credible contender for the Democratic nomination.

I would not say all of the media coverage on Obama and Clinton are necessarily positive, so maybe Edwards should enjoy public opinion and not concern himself with the coverage of bickering going on between the others.

Mr Edwards, don't feel bad. On The Republican side, if your name is not McCAIN, HUCKABEE or ROMNEY you're ignored by the media...

Edwards is done. Let's move on to real news: Obama thinks Ronald Reagan was so best??? What a panderer! Come on media do your job and cover this guy - the real guy and not the faux candidate.

Wonder what a Win would do to even out the coverage? That's what Edwards needs to do, win. Because if he doesn't, he's going to feel like Dennis Kucinich.

Edwards has no right to complain. He was senator for one year and got absolutely nothing accomplished during that time and was a trial lawyer before that with an obsession to be president. He is a bit too slick and a bit too phony and most primary voters see thru this. He's all icing and no cake, or as Wlater Mondale might say, if he were asked about John Edwards, "Where's the beef?".

I agree that Edwards doesn't get as much coverage as Clinton or Obama. Also Dodd, Kuchini, etc, don't get as much. But in reality, I think the news coverage tries to report on the ones that there is the most interest in. Someone who gets 2% of the poll vote just doesn't hold as much interest as someone who is getting 65% of the poll vote. Edwards seems to be #3 in the polls, and usually a low #3 at that, so he doesn't get as much coverage as #1 and #2. Makes sense to me.

I agree! I think it is still a 3 candidate race. We're seeing 3 candidates being covered in the republican primaries, why not in the democratic?

I'm not sure who I 'm voting for, but I'd like to see more coverage on Mr. Edwards to help all of us who are undecided. Being in a state that doesn't have a primary until Super Tuesday, and living no where near the states that have had primaries, we need to hear about all the candidates, fairly and as equally as possible. Our area has some of the same issues and some different ones. Who may be best for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, may very well not be the best candidate for us.

This is a good point. made by the Edward camp, and I am in FULL agreement.

As I don't have time to follow the campaign as intensely as I would like to, so having the press summarize and cover fairly all of the results would be very much appreciated, as it is expected. However, when I turn on the news, on whatever station, on peak on line, the impression that is given by the media coverage s just that. Mostly, and at times only the O & C coverage is what I see. What about ALL of the candidates and their progress? This still the US of America, and with that more fairness would be expected. Let the people make their own, well informed decisions about the CHANGE that is promised.........

Edwards is exactly right. This is about fairness of the media. Oh, what am I saying, it does not exist. The media has been acting like it is a two candidate race. Edwards plans for our Country are better than Obama and Clinton combined. Get fair, media. We have a long way to go before the election.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this discrepancy in reporting. I want to hear more on what Edwards has to say. Why is the media so unbalanced?

We agree. Appears media courting the candidates with the most $ to spend on advertising, etc. The process is no longer about the selecting the best person but really the best person money can buy.
Too bad really the system has degenerated to this.

Too little, too late. Edwards should have been screaming about this six months ago.

It's sad and tragic to watch as Americans make the same mistakes they did in 2000 and 2004.

Our country is on the auction block along with our jobs, our future, and our children's future.

Clinton will not address the big issues. She is owned by special interests and big corporations.

Obama's plans for things like CO2 emissions are far too little too late. He is really just a diluted Hillary.

Vote Edwards if you want a change. Hillary and Obama won't/can't.

I agree and will be voting for Edwards in the Tennessee primary as I did in the last Presidential election. John Edwards would make a great President for the United States.

If anyone should be taking aim at the (government controlled) media it should be Ron Paul but of course he is too much of a gentleman to get into back and forth with a bunch of reporters.

Now if you want to talk about getting this country back to the Constitution and solving our financial crisis then Dr. Paul can help!

No kidding. This has been my complaint since day one. As a result, highly qualified candidates are dropping out of the race. Its really upsetting to me that Americans are letting the media choose their candidates. I thought we were smarter than that.

Senator Edwards campaign has it right. (and I've been complaining about this for weeks on all the media sites.) The coverage has been Clinton-Obama as if there were no other candidates in the race. The media is in effect narrowing the choices that the people of the country have by not giving sufficient coverage to a candidate who's delelgate count at this point is as substantial as the other two well covered candidates. More even-handed coverage would be appreciated.

I also think the press is unfair in its coverage. I am from Michigan so not only did we not get a fair representation from all candidates personally before the primarys we also don't get news coverage. I am overwhelmed with info about Clinton and Obama. I want info on John Edwards!!!

I would not vote for Edwards, but I agree with his campaign 100%. The media and journalists think that they have the right to impose their opinions and choices on the American public. It has been very obvious that certain networks favor certain candidates right from the start. Media is very conscious of the fact that the majority, not all, of the public are like sheep--they will follow the leader in total ignorance. So, if the media coverage tells them that they need a woman or a black man in the White House, or that "Oprah" endorses someone, the "flock" will follow. Sadly, this is how the President of the United States gets elected. Too bad more people don't learn the FACTS about the candidates and then make a choice for themselves.

Let's be fair about this and give all candidates equal time.

I absolutely agree with John Edwards on this! Bravo John! I am SICK of having a few media moguls decide who my next President is going to be. Every night I watch the news and wonder about it – especially given the scarcely-mentioned polls that show Edwards as the only Democratic candidate who can beat any Republican! Someone should do an investigation to find out what constraints have been put on reporters and anchors regarding John Edwards reporting — we already know in the case of Katie Couric that she has a personal predilection toward one of the candidates — Give us the facts and the truth in a balanced way and let the voters decide – not ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN — and certainly not FOX!

Since my comments aren't being allowed for hold the bias media responsible, I'll cut and paste comments that reflect my opinions also.

Gee, Johnny you beat Hillary by how much in Iowa....3/10th of one percent? Wow, you what a major accomplishment!

Stop your whining ...it's embarrassing!

We Americans need a civics course on how the Presidential Convention works. It is not only to select a candidate, but also the voices heard on the party platform and, in part, having input and a say on the VP candidate. If there is only a plurality of delegates for any frontrunner, then the 3rd position candidate's delegates have a VITAL role to play at the convention. To have a brokered convention could revitalize the Democratic base even more than if it is just a coronation.

Even if Edwards ends up 3rd at the Convention, it is important that his delegates are there to represent the reformist/anti-lobby/special interests concerns in committee at the Convention. ESPECIALLY to counteract the establishment/centrists of Hillary's cadre. If Edwards has enough delegates, he will have a say on the party platform and who the VP choice will be, if not the Presidential candidate (see above).

Edwards supporters – do not lose heart. Keep your eyes on the prize. Your vote counts – don't be bullied by the media or ignorant yahoos who don't understand how the process works.

maybe it's not a bad thing that Edwards just hang back and let Billary and Barack duke it out. I don't particularly like Edwards but would definitely vote for him over Hilllary. Heck I'd vote for Mickey Mouse over Hillary.

It is no secret that the media can make or break you according to their coverage, they have taken the opportunity to talk bad about Hillary Clinton in the past and ignore candidates. I guess we should just let them decide the election! Boy that is a scary thought! It is sad that there does not seem to be any good journalism anymore. It is up to the people to make up their own minds by doing research etc on their candidate and not be swayed by the media or celebrities.

Edwards is absolutely right. The media has made the Democratic run for president into a two-person contest and has deliberately ignored the other candidates.

The American public has got to make the mainstream media irrelevant. The mainstream media is nothing but a shill for Big Business and Big Government anyway, and it continually distorts the truth in their favor.

During the Cold War, we continually criticized the Communist states for the propaganda they fed their citizens. And there's no propaganda in this country? Don't kid yourselves.

I absolutely agree with John Edwards on this! Bravo John! I am SICK of having a few media moguls decide who my next President is going to be. Every night I watch the news and wonder about it – especially given the scarcely-mentioned polls that show Edwards as the only Democratic candidate who can beat any Republican! Someone should do an investigation to find out what constraints have been put on reporters and anchors regarding John Edwards reporting - we already know in the case of Katie Couric that she has a personal predilection toward one of the candidates - CNN seems to be the fairest and yet they too treat this too often as a 2-person race. Give us the facts and the truth in a balanced way and let the voters decide – not ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN - and certainly not FOX!

IF YOU WOULD STOP TELLING US HOW GOOD OF APOLITICAL TEAM YOU ARE PROVE IT. AND GIVE FAIR COVERAGE TO JOHN EDWARDS HE IS A VERY VIABLE CANDICATE . IN SPITE OF HEARING NOTHING BUT CLINTON AND DEEEE. SO COME ON WOLF DON ' T TELL US HOW GOOD YOU ARE WE'RE SICK OF HEARING IT EDWARD'S SHOULD HAVE THE SAME COVERAGE BEFORE YOU BRAG ABOUT HOW GOOD YOU'LL ARE . PEOPLE WOULD APPRECIATE HONESTY AND FAIRNESS WHICH YOU'LL ARE VERY SHORT ON. ASK JACK CASSITTY I'M SURE HE'S NOTICED AND HE IS HONEST I FEEL LIKE. I GET SO SICK HEARING IT . I HAVE TO WATCH HARDBALL AND TUCKER HOPING THEY WILL GIVE FAIR COVERAGE. HERE.S TO HOPING YOU'LL DO THE RIGHT THING BE FAIR TO ALL . DEMPSEY DELTONA FL.

I agree you don't hear much from the media for Edwards, it is becasue the big corporations knows if he wins they are in trouble. I am still going to vote for him if he stays in and I know alot of my friends are too. The corps are pouring big bucks to the media to keep John's name out.

IF Edwards cared so much about media fairness and equal coverage of candidates why did he not stand up and defend Kucinich when he was banned from the debates. These three only care about WINNING. As for Obama and Hillary, they are both so obviously calculating. Listen carefully and you can hear the code words. Look at who is funding them. There will not be substantive change with either of them. Most importantly, you can bet the crimes committed by the current admin will remain hidden during their terms in order to "unite us" and "look forward" . There will NEVER be real change until the people of this country know the truth.

Obama/Edwards 08 is the DEMOCRATIC DREAM TICKET!!

I hope that starting in SC, and then NV that Edwards can start to knock down Hillary’s numbers and return to the position of a strong second as he did in Iowa. The Obama and Edwards families represent integrity and character. The Clintons have to leave the room when those standards are applied.

EDWARDS IS RIGHT. He is enduring a total shut out on the national news media. It is totally unfair and it needs to stop TODAY!

CNN & MSNBC are both following a Hillary Channel format. They give 90% coverage to Hillary, 10% coverage to Obama, and 0% to Edwards.

If you look at the program flow over 24/7, you will see that both news channels will repeat a Hillary spot several times within a specific program, with no response or equal time from the other candidates, unless they are focusing on an attack on Obama. Then they will cut him off with a 3-second spot against several minutes of airing Hillary. They don’t show Edwards at all.

Across the 24 hour span of broadcasting, CNN & MSNBC will continue to play the Hillary spots again and again with a favorable slant to Hillary. If they do an interview with her, it is an in insipid, fawning piece.

For example, Hillary brought up the issue of Al Queda attacking a new administration. That is exactly what happened when Al Queda made the first attack on the WTC in 1993 during the Clinton co-presidency.

The Clinton co-presidency failed to handle intelligence, homeland security, or to offer comfort and reassurance to the American people. The Clintons never made a timely visit to the first WTC bombing site or offered direct comfort to the injured or the families of those who died in the first bombing. Many believe that 9-11 could have been prevented if the Clinton co-presidency had done its job in protecting this nation from the first major attack of Al Queda, or taking the proper security action 8 years before 9-11.

On MSNBC, on Meet The Press, Russert failed to ask Hillary a question about the Clinton co-presidency and the WTC bombing in 1993.In the Dem debate in NV, after Hillary made the point again about Al Queda tests, Russert failed again to ask Hillary a question about the 1993 WTC Al Queda attack. Yet, Russert styles himself as the guy with the perfect follow up question.

Maybe Russert was afraid that Hillary would cry if he asked her a direct question about the first WTC bombing attack in 1993 when she was co-president with her husband Bill Clinton.

I say to CNN & MSNBC. STOP THE HILLARY CHANNEL FORMAT TODAY!!!

Give all 3 of the Dem candidates equal airtime, starting TODAY.

Thank you.

He's right.

I've just decided to donate money to his campaign.

Edwards/Obama
Obama/Edwards

People, same thing happened 4 years ago! Does anyone remember the Dean Scream? How many times was that replayed and what did that do for Dean? Yep, Dean was gone and we get stuck with Kerry.

Same things happening again. People who really want to make change, not just talk about change, are never heard from. This scares the estabishment. Any one who wants to eliminate the IRS has my vote.

GO RON PAUL !!!

Please inject democracy into the news. CNN has been my favorite for many years, but of late I've not been pleased with the coverage. The primaries should not have been decided already by a couple of states – the coverage is unfair. John Edwards and others deserve to be heard whether they are big powerhouses of money or not. Also, what ever happened to asking candidates about the environment? The media has the ability to help shape the popular issues and focus, and it's obviously an immediate threat that MUST be taken on by this next presidency.

From the north,,, One should'nt throw rocks when they live in a glass house,,,, One who accusses a president of interfering in foriegn affairs should not be writing endless comments on foriegn election process and interfering in a countries election process "they' have no vote in. Ones daily injection of oppinion in a nother countries every news story leads one to believe that person is in-valid and should be more intrested in there own countries problems as they go into the future.

Clinton obviously has some experience as First Lady and a junior senator, but she has never been a US President to claim such an experience; More than that she is the most polarising modern American politician, even more so than Dubya.

Obama has an Ivy League education and limited experience but he has honesty and perhaps humility, two good qualities of a good leader.

Edwards is not quite as experienced as The Lady but he holds his own, and does so very well. But is neither charasmatic as Obama nor is he as cunning as The Lady. He is known as a true fighter for the middle class, but Lou Dobbs hardly talks about him. In fact the US media, as if by collective conspiracy, have decided that Edwards' populist message of the people reclaiming their government is not worth telling and therefore not worth listening to. Is it the free press or the corporate media? Hmm.

Edwards openly talks about "fighting" the corporations who have greedily followed their bellies, manipulated government policies via NAFTA and the WTO, and through these they fleece the people. These corporations have set up their own shadow government, which is more powerful than the US Government itselt, in a alley simply called "K Street" not far from where the peoples government should be. In the end their corporate execs reap millions in unearned "bonuses," even as their performances remain abysmal, while the common people are reduced to subsistence.

Why does the Edward Campaign or anybody in their right mind think that these corporations, who own and control the media, will promote someone who has sworn to fight them? This is the plain hard truth to why Edwards is not getting commensurate coverage by the media. I would not dare dig my own grave even at the beckoning of the executioner. He can dig the hole after I'm dead.

Edwards is not my favorite candidate but I think his message should be heard by the people. And let the poeple decide if they don't like what he says. But this can happen in a world where the press is free from corporate influence and editorial interferences. That world is in Eutopia.

What a world we live in!

Yes John, you are being ignored... because nobody is interested. Well, it's not like nobody is interested, it's just that they like what you say so much better when it comes out of Obama's mouth. It tends to be a lot more warm and less violent that way. That said, you'd make a great VP (especially for Obama). And, given the fact you are politically unemployed right now, I would suggest it.

Why wasn't my comment posted like all the others?

Think about this. Edwards talks of "breaking the hold" the corporations and lobbyists have on our government. CNN, FOX, etc. are all huge corporations that are obviously out for ratings and money at any cost. Why would they WANT to spread Edwards ' message about how he intends to fight to take their total power away?
Now that should make us all think....

AJ from Illinois: Thank you for giving us Edward's voting record as a Senator. Your reporting is needed. The truth(s) that appear on the blogs from many people are
the result of reading & research from many sources. The opinions of some are the result of passion but little information; these blogs are one way to learn what's needed to become an educated voter who believes strongly in his/her choice. So,
chalk one up for CNN for giving us an opportunity to complain, even about their
coverage, and to share our beliefs. That is democratic...And,yes, we need some
method for giving equal time even as the time grows short..Thanks CNN!

Moderate what is the problem with my comment? saying there maybe a Edward Obama ticket or a Clinton Edward ticket or a Edward Clinton or a Obama Clinton or Clinton Obama ticket or a Obama Edward Ticket.

Hillary is easily the most conservative out of all the Democratic candidates. If she gets the nomination I'll have no choice but to put in my vote for Ralph Nader once again.

i agree. its time for the media to include John Edwards in its coverage in a more equidable manner!

Edwards should recieve more coverage! If only he had Ron Paul's media rep.. The way I see it ........ change=Edwards........experience=Edwards. Too bad the other candidates claimed the phrases first. Even with the medias' short end of the stick, Edwards has excellent poll and caucus numbers. Keep the bus rolling John!

EDWARDS 2008!!!!!

This election is perhaps the most important in the history of our country. The voters need absolutely unbiased coverage (and we aren't getting it) of all three viable Democratic candidates (and Edwards is consistently ignored). I am sick of all the opinions on our so-called news programs. Can we have the facts? Or don't you have the facts? Filling every day with opinion after opinion from the same people is tedious.
As voters, we all need to get beyond personality and look at what these people can actually do. All three are exceptional. Our country is in decline thanks to our current Bush-Cheney Administration and their secretive, powerful stranglehold over our entire governmental system. We need a President with the guts to stop the rich corporations from killing our way of life for the almighty dollar.
In ignoring John Edwards and his message, the media may just be over-looking the man who can stop this decline and move us back in the direction of global power.
Please, CNN. You are the self-acclaimed news leader that "everyone looks to" for coverage. Stop being a news/entertainment magazine and cover all three candidates fairly and in an unbiased way.
We need to hear equally from all three Democratic candidates.

I'm a brit and our elections may work slightly differntly but I completely agree with Mr. Edwards. The media are giving Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton an unfair advantage and it is wrong that the media should influence politics at such a critical time for the US. We're talking about electing a new leader of one of the largest countries in the world here.

The moderations on this site are ridiculous. It's blatantly clear that users' opinions that are critical are being blocked. I wrote up a few lines about the "third tier" candidates in this race being essentially blocked by Murdoch and CNN and my "comment awaiting moderator approval" disappears a couple hours later, and this definitely isn't the first time this has happened.

Isn't this supposed to be a news site?

The fact that directly below the article, in the File Under section, Edwards is the third name listed (though the article is predominately about him) behind obama and clinton proves this point exactly.

It sure seems like the media is picking the top candidates this year, doesn't it? If you're not one of the anointed Top Two, you're pretty much going to have to rape a campaign aide or kill a litter of puppies with your bare hands to get any screen time. Its depressing that a lazy and corporate-ized media is preventing the voting public from hearing much of anything from the non-frontrunners. Used to be, candidates with alternate viewpoints at least got to add to the discourse even if they didn't bring in bill poll numbers or early primary wins, helping to shape their party's platform. Now, people like Dennis Kucinich don't even have a chance to speak. Appalling!

When he's right, he's right.

Just donated $$ to John!

I will NOT let the media tell me who is the "winner" and who is the "loser."

AND, MY LETTER TO MEDIA –

A request for coverage

Dear [FAVORITE PUNDIT HERE],

You are ignoring John Edwards – it is noticed, and increasingly not appreciated. We can find all the news we want about Hillary and Barack on lots of other stations. I am tired of hearing the same spin on the same candidates.

Please give me hard facts and updates on the Edwards Campaign.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

I would like to hear and read more of John Edwards and his campaign. After all that the entire Country, and World has suffered through the last several years, which has involved so much dishonesty, it saddens me to see this dysfunction continue on into our next Presidential race. Let’s everyone get honest, including the press, and allow every person a chance to run and to pick our next President, based on facts. Otherwise, how many more years can we continue like this? What we do today, will affect our children and grandchildren for many, many years to come.

don't be bush-league. don't we all want the same thing? the CONSTITUTION?

rise above – whine privately – swipe meaningfully.

To Xavier, Washington, DC January 17, 2008 4:44 pm ET

"The white man is complaining about being marginalized. How ironic is that?"

A racists comment, now thats really ironic!

Edwards and Clinton were in LA this afternoon. Edwards had a much larger turnout than Clinton. Yet on the local evening news, several minutes were spent covering Clinton's visit, then a minute or so talking about yesterday's Obama visit with only 4 people, and then finally, a mention that John Edwards was also here. What is this??? In theory, all three candidates made the news. But the coverage given to Edwards today was NOTHING compared to Obama and Clinton.

I have been very disappointed with the media's behavior this election. The most grevious infraction is that of the blackout on Ron Paul!

Well - I'll really take this up a notch.

Because it is true that the media have been actively disregarding Edwards as a candidate almost from the beginning - for a year already it's been Hillary and Obama.

Edwards is the only Democrat I'll vote for. I will NOT vote for Clinton. I will NOT vote for Obama. Neither of them, in my opinion, would be a good choice for this country.

Edwards would be an awesome choice. In my opinion he's the only Democrat choice.

So I've always voted Democrat, and I'm a registered Democrat, and I absolutely HATE Bush. But here I am, trying to figure out which of the Republicans I'm likely to have to vote for, and all because from day 1 the media hasn't given Edwards adequate exposure.

I feel strongly that if they were reporting in an unbiased manner, that Edwards would be leading this race. He still has a chance, if enough people have the guts to see through the smoke and mirrors that Obama and Clinton have been putting out.

I think that the media should cover every candidate equally. i also think that no matter who wins the presidency ( hopefully edwards) will do alot better in a day than what president Bush has done his whole term. Iowa wants Edwards.

he is exactly right. for the amount of time that the media spends talking about the primaries, they could make a better effort to keep it balanced (and interesting).

************************************************************************************

Edwards would never sell us out to a obama/edwards ticket

SO......Don't hold your breath's.........edwards will either win this hands down with out the media or we will have a brokered convention!!! YEAH!!!!!

BESIDE'S......obama is exactly what john is fighting in washington (status quo)

OBAMA IS NOT BETTER THAN CLINTON OR BUSH!!

OBAMA AND CLINTON WILL NEVER GET MY VOTE!

GO JOHN GO!

FIGHT JOHN FIGHT!

***********************************************************************************

I like John Edwards and the press is not being fair to him at all. I plan on voting for Edwards. He is the best person for the job as President of the U.S.

I previously supported John Edwards' candidacy , but he came across like such an obnoxious jerk toward Hillary Clinton during the two most recent debates that I now think of him as more of a reactive boy-child, easily intimidated, and out of control. If the media is ignoring him, thank you very much!

I completely agree. Ron Paul has been shunned on the Republican side as well. The American Media should be disgusted with itself, because the American people sure are disgusted with them.

I couldn't agree more with Edwards. The truly capable people who should be the front runners already dropped out. This election would have looked a lot different if all candidates got equal coverage. It is amazing to me how irresponsible the media including CNN has been in covering this election. And I just love how Obama and Clinton were and still are titled the "top tier candidates" as though the media had nothing to do with that, as though it happened naturally. People wouldnt shut up about Clinton being president since Bill left office in 2000. The real candidates like Biden, Richardson and Dodd are not going to help these news programs gain ratings. And since the media has been so fixated on these two celebrity candidates that people have no choices but these two. If the media was trustworthy there would be a lower amount of undecided voters. CNN needs to step it up and address this issue directly, they can be the first to a healthier election year in the future. And Americans as if is don't have a clue about how to vote if all they look for is this back and forth media influence over the election. The real process of choosing a good president probably wouldnt recieve high ratings because people don't want to face the fact that political campaigns are bland. If people voted without media influence, they would actually make an informed decisin and cast an informed vote. Don't even get me started on campaign financing...Edwards cannot be proven wrong and the media and CNN would be cowards not to address this issue directly especially if they agreed with him and decided to still not address this.

Good for you John Edwards! Corporate donations=Corporate media=Hillary and Obama coverage only because John is the people's choice!

I think Edwards has little right to complain after being caught conspiring with Hillary to keep other candidates out of debates (the reason Kucinich told his Iowa delegates to choose Obama second despite earlier on being close friends with Edwards.) Such hypocrisy. When it happens to someone he considers minor he is fine and says nothing about it. When it starts happening to him, then he lashes out.

Right on, Edwards! All the candidates have much to offer but Obama and Hillary are getting all the attention–and corporate money–because they're "newsworthy." No doubt he's ignored because he attacks the very corporations who own the media outlets. Look how they treat their own writers who create the shows that produce all the advertising revenue!

Thank goodness Edwards has the courage and conviction to stand up to the powerful lobbyists and coporate moguls–of course that's why he's being ignored. I'd rather have a candidate with substance and sincerity than sizzle.
Edwards says what he thinks–and you know exactly where he stands, unlike some politicians who tell people what they want to hear in catchy sound bites. GO EDWARDS 08!

It would be historic for either Obama or Clinton to progress to the presidency, however, the best candidate for real change and real action happens to be a southern white man who is being marginalized by the press because he is neither black nor a woman.

Start paying attention everyone!

Thank you Edwards for your efforts. It is time you faced reality

Comments of AJ,IL:

Edwards is rich: So are the Kennedys. Many of the biggest philanthropists are rich people who still remember being poor. Look at Bill Gates (not my favorite person, but very much into his philanthropic projects).

Edwards' wife is dying of cancer: Have you heard or seen her speak? She is eloquent, funny, down to earth, and very very bright. What a woman! And you know, if I had limited time left, I can think of worse ways to spend it than devoting myself to making the world a better place. That is what she is doing.

I'm filled with admiration for these two. They are fighters. And they care.

I agree John Edwards should have equal media time he is running for President too.

Boo hoo for Edwards. That's politics. Maybe he should cry about it publicly like Hillary? That seemed to do the trick for her. Seeing as most major television and newspapers are run by liberal left wing democrats he should cry to them – oh wait, he is! Edwards is displaying the all too common "it's not my fault (for losing)" posturing and putting the blame on someone else. Step up Mr. Edwards and take the responsibility for your poor position on issues and poor campaign strategy. If voters agreed with it, you'd get a lot more press coverage. What this country needs is a strong leader and you're showing the people why you aren't qualified.

Edwards is absolutely right. The media have a big influence on who is "viable". They know it, and they use it. CNN is no exception. I am a Kucinich man but I'd be happy to vote for Edwards. Hillary, on the other hand, wouldn't get my vote with a gun to my head.
Although I am certainly no fan of his, the same thing can be said about Ron Paul. He'd be much more viable if the media would give him the same attention they give to other candidates.
The media is owned by a few giant corporations (News Corp., Time Warner, General Electric, etc.) which will always act in their own interests. Any candidate whose favor they can't buy will fail to get the proper media coverage or respect. Edwards has turned away lobbyists and PACs and has vowed to keep special interests out of the White House. "Corporate America" (in quotes since corporations have NO loyalty to nations) doesn't like that.
The whole system is corrupt. Someday, in the not so terribly distant future, the American people will have to wake up from their Britney Spears/PlayStation/American Idol induced comas and take this country back from those who have hijacked it.

obama blog patrol is out again.

i should remind you that if you are on the obama campaign's payroll, and you are doing this sort of blogging, you are in fact breaking election rules, but it will be your candidate that will suffer the fallout...

hmmm....why the media blackout of edwards??? lets see....

Hillary: National Amusements Inc $193,850
Time Warner $124,150
Cablevision Systems $135,113
News Corp $99,350

Obama: National Amusements Inc $220,950
Time Warner $142,718

national amusements, a movie theater chain, also owned by the same conglomerate that owns viacom and cbs, i do believe.

news corp owned by rupert murdoch. eww. i hope hillary's camp washed their hands after receiving those donations, it's got murdoch on it...

but hey, the media will NEVER cover these numbers, will they???

honestly folks, it's called good journalism. use it.

edwards is getting less coverage. all we hear is obma (asoma) hillary. the media is trying to brain wash america. you want experience, well, the media let joe biden get way too. i believe edwards will fight for the american people.

Welcome to Ron Paul's world. John Edwards wasn't complaining about the media bias it has for Ron Paul. NO ccoverage,bad coverage,excluded from debates. Ron Paul 2008

I definitely agree with Senator Edwards and I feel he covered his disappointments very well.
Sensationalism and subjectiveness lives and breathes within the media and it's actually amazing that most media coverage has ventured off from the media mission that required "Worthiness of Substance" and "Objectiveness with Many Veiws" not just reporting fragmented snipetts and bias commentaries.
Most of the media is appearing more and more like the tabloids they so very often in the past in which they(media) would mock and criticize as less worthy reporting...hmmm What's The Difference Between Them Now.

Not sure if this is a good tactic; the people who need to listen don't care.

What is with the comment about Edwards own supporters not taking him seriously?

You're speaking for them? Don't do that.

One could construe that you are speaking from your rear.

NW Pakistan Cave Democratic Primary Caucus Results, Jan. 18:

Clinton :2
Edwards: 20
Obama: 350
Kucinich:3
Present: Obama

Obama wins in a landslide.

Because you are a trial attorney. The media is full of you blood suckers. Spare us please. We do not need a trial lawyer for President.

listen... john has been running for Prez since 2002 AND IT HAS NOT WORKED!!!
it's not the media's fault... it's his campaigns.. i reckon the electorate is just not buying his angry brand of politics... they either prefer hill's "say whatever/scorched earth" approach or barack's "can't we just all get along" brand of politics..

i'd rather just get along!!!

go barack!!!

I agree, the coverage of Edwards (more correctly, lack thereof) is a national disgrace. Other countries cover him more than the American press! I have two theories...as others have pointed out, the corporate media is supporting the two corporate-financed ($100 million each) candidates and ignoring the guy using public financing and individual contributions. As the British newspaper The Guardian pointed out, "Edwards is the candidate most feared by U.S. Corporate Elite." My other theory is, because 90% of the American corporate media is Republican-owned, it is in their best interest to "sell" unelectable Democratic candidates. Since the polls show that Edwards is the only Dem who beats every Repub, including McCain, they don't want him to be the nominee. Thank God for the internet and the grass roots effort being made on Edwards' behalf. Rise up, Dems! Don't vote for who the media tells you to vote for! Vote for the best, most electable candidate...John Edwards!

Poor John – why don't you some of your ambulance chasing / personal liability / sue the deep pocket insurance company wealth and buy more ads?

The media exercised an almost total blackout on coverage of Bill Richardson. Many people will vote for him in California, just to show that Iowa, NH and the media do not tell us how to vote.

Is the media playing race card with Obama and avoiding criticsm of him because of his ethnicity?

You are from Rochester NY and you're supporting Hillary? She completely neglects Western NY (Rochester and Buffalo especially – the economies are WORSE since she took over) and upstate for that matter, unless it's the county their home is in. She had her time to convert NY to her side, but she has been a complete failure in that regard.

And Edwards is right, when is the last time they talked about him? I support Barak Obama, but Edwards is the next best choice for the Democrats.

Go Obama! Go Edwards!

During the CNN debates, it was Blitzer and Cooper who gave Clinton and Obama what seemed to be about 80 percent of all the questions. And after Edwards beat Clinton recently, the media continued giving almost exclusive coverage to Clinton and Obama. It's amazing. The media is not even making a pretense of giving the candidates fair coverage. And CNN leads the pack. That's why I no longer watch CNN for my news. Nor will I ever again. The rank unfairness of it boggles the mind.

The way i see it is , the sooner Edwards drops out , the sooner Obama runs away with this thing.

Clinton will be a blurr in the rear view mirror once Edwards is gone.

Edwards comes across as an angry white Southern male with a personal vengeance against lobbyists, power brokers, businessmen and wealthy, who collectively would be nearly 10-20 million voting faction. However, all the campaign managers working for him are former lobbyists and power brokers, many are wealthy, as he himself is.

He is a proud trial lawyer with the supports of teachers union, lawyers, workers union etc who all have their own lobbyists in the K Street.

He is highly hypocritical; once he gets the power he will encourage his own lobbyists and unions to have an upper hand in everything in Washington. He is a bleeding liberal as Obama is. They will destroy doctors, hospitals, oil and pharmaceuticals industries. The Teachers Union and Labor Unions will flourish and the whole economy will tank.

We face a tough economy, war, budget problems, medicare, Social Security issues, all of which need a person who can work across the aisle and get a bipartisan support to solve the humongous obstacles. Can he or Obama do the job.

I seriously doubt it. We need a person who can Deliver Real Change in Washington, not just a high sounding slogan of fussy faith of some change for the sake of change.

Stupid move. All he's doing is pointing out that nobody is paying attention to him. He sounds like a whiny kid.

For the last few weeks, I had really noticed how the focus of most news coverage was only on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So much so, that I was surprised that it was considered a statistical dead heat in Nevada. John Edwards coming in second in Iowa was hardly even mentioned in the race to whether Hillary or Barack would win New Hampshire.

In one write up on the web, I even read speculation on how 'Edwards backers' would divide up between Hillary and Barack. The article did not continue on with how either Hillary or Barack's supporters would 'divide up' between Edwards and the other remaining candidate. Why not? Is it really already over for Edwards?

Even Hillary and Barack seem to ignore John Edwards in much of the coverage I have seen.

Personally, I think all three candidates have potential and I would really like the media to cover all three of them more equally.

Cindy

I think the man has a legitimate complaint here.

However, I would add further, that they also give absolutely zero coverage to attempts made for third party formations and candidates.

Could it be that the humongous political advertising dollars are part of the problem here?

Finally, the Edwards campaign is calling the media out on their lazy, corporate-owner-driven coverage of this campaign. You'd think that with 24/7 access to the viewing public, CNN's self-aggrandizing "best political team on television" could come up with more wide-ranging and in-depth coverage. Not gonna happen, as long as the advertisers think they'll get more bang for their buck by pandering to the lowest common denominator - those voters who can only hold SOME information on TWO candidates in their tiny brains. Or to those who continue to watch Larry King doing some of the WORST interviewing I've ever seen on television. CNN must take a good deal of responsibility for "dumbing down the discourse."

Obama is the darling of the media and has all the reason to be extremely happy with the media for not asking him tough questions and giving him a free ride.

Edwards voted for most of what he now opposes. The American people are just not falling for his newfound, angry populism.

Exactly right. Why is it that all we see is "Hillary and Obama"?

Cry Baby!!!

It's over when the candidate has to cry because he isn't getting enough "free coverage". Edwards didn't have it last time, and he doesn't have it this time. He's just another guy running for office. He has no "spark", and its too late to get one. Give it up man. It's over. You lose....again. If you only had Kerry's endorsement.. oh that's right he's a loser too.

I'm voting for Hillary. But John Edwards does not get the same media attention. However, the media bounces on Hillary every chance they get, so maybe Edwards is luckier than he thinks. The media darling is Obama. I have wondered ..why? And finally Obama gave me an answer..He is" like Reagan." You remember him? He is the Republican that did not like unions and fired the air traffic controllers that went out on strike. Culinary Union...did you really endorese this guy? Rethink this! Go for the proven union backer and most qualified candidate. VOTE HILLARY

What was wrong with my comment made over 6 hours ago?

There was nothing derogatory in it.

Except my mention a few "newsmen" like Russert, Andrea Mitchell and Gibson.

This is downright pitiful.

Thank you.

I am an Edwards supporter. I do however, believe that Edwards could definately be stronger on International issues and this would also help to draw more media attention his way.

He's right, BUT it seems to just be payback for 200+ years of the white male getting attention and the minority/woman being left in the back ground.... Doesn't feel good does it?

Edwards has a point. All one has to do is watch the evening news (all networks) and the Sunday morning shows (all networks). Edwards has been totally marginalized. I think that the media decided that it wanted two "star" candidates, didn't want any "interloper" getting in the way and made a "judgement" call to shut him out and hopefully, shut him up.

That won't work and anyone who reads, follows, WATCHES John Edwards knows that.

It is downright shameful that so-called journalists really are not JOURNALISTS.

As I said, shameful.

Terre, Sandy, OR

I posted a comment too 2 hours ago (9:51 PM ET), and it is still not showing, according to another computer user. I think CXNN not showing it because they dont like the comments we are making.

You go, John, You are a real fighter. Every word you get in makes a difference. When you get any part of your oar in the water you steer the ship. Boyaah!

I'm with carol Obama/Ewards ticket will be great but a slam dunk will be Obama/Strickland ticket. John already had his chance back in 04, even though I do agree that he is not getting his full share of coverage but when Obama wins I would use him still as a cabinet member

Drop out and endorse Obama already.

I told so! There are enormous corruptions among media with political bigotry within lobby supports. There is no such thing for a freedom in America because lobby controlled media manipulates and influences people to vote for what lobby wishes. That is sad because money often buys democracy. Winston Churchill quoted about democracy that "Its a terrible system but it is better than all the others we have tried." Eventually, American civlization will be irreversible deteriorating because of excessive corruption in politic and media in this country. We need to change the system that powerful lobby and politics never permits us to change because of their fears .

They just want to cover Hussein Obama. By the way has anyone noticed that the blacks are really down playing King Day this year?

What does Edward's expect? He attacked Hilliary for O'Bama and even stated O'Bama and he were the candidates for change while belittling Hilliary. Will only one person is needed to be a candidate for change and the newest candidate is O'Bama. He should have paid more attention to distinguishing himself from O'Bama instead of Hilliary.

Wait a minute...when Edwards won Iowa, didn't he himself declare Hillary finished and say it was a two-person race between him and Obama? Oops. Sounds like Edwards is getting a dose of his own medicine. Cry me a river!

So obviously John Edwards has received less coverage than Clinton and Obama. Whether you are for or against his positions, why not give this scrappy attorney-turned-politician credible coverage – he has a lot to say and we need to hear his views! When we don't hear all of the candidates with equal voice, it is totally impossible to make an informed decision. But who is counting minutes of television time? The bias of media coverage makes me turn off the television (all year)!

Hey SyF the Giver, from Chicago, IL January 17, 2008 4:21 pm ET your comment

Poor Edwards, nobody pays attention to him… is true!!!! From the very beginning I thought the same thing. You have to admit, lots of the attention is on Obama and Hillary.

So obviously John Edwards has received less coverage than Clinton and Obama. Whether you are for or against his positions, recognition of his comments and opinions receive significantly minor consideration. It is difficult enough for voters to formulate an informed opinion, but when we don't hear all of the candidates with equal voice, it is totally impossible. Why not give this scrappy attorney-turned politician decent coverage – he has a lot to say and we need to hear it! But who is counting minutes of television time? The bias of media coverage makes me turn off the television(all year)!

If you're a Clinton or Obama supporter and you're confident in your candidate's chances, then what's the problem with fair and equal coverage for Edwards? As an American, you should welcome it.

The media is doing a disservice to the American people by ignoring him! Enough Already!!!! Play Fair!!!

I agree with the Edwards campaign too as well as every person who posted a comment being glad to see the media taken to task about this. The worst group during this presidential election...as far as I am concerned...has been the media. They are really trying to take the power away from the candidates and the voting citizens of the US to decide for us who our next US president will be. We have seen it every time they excluded Republican and Democratic candidates from being able to debate and we saw it in NH when they were telling the voters who they were going to vote for before they ever voted. Shame on the media for losing all sight of their purpose and for losing respect for this country and our voting citizens. The media has now made themselves part of the story and they seem to believe what they think is more important then the facts.

Why does it seem like this story is being reported in the third person? Isn't he talking about you CNN the "media" you are one of those he is talking about, and he is right. No different then Fox "news"

it has been sooo frustrating...John Edwards is the only candidate with the courage for real change...and the media refuses to acknowledge this....its blatant, and its disgusting...get it together...

John Edwards 2008!!!!

So obviously John Edwards has received less coverage than Clinton and Obama. Whether you are for or against his positions, recognition of his comments and opinions receive significantly minor consideration. It is difficult enough for voters to formulate an informed opinion, but when we don't hear all of the candidates with equal voice, it is totally impossible. Why not give this scrappy attorney-turned politician decent coverage – he has a lot to say and we need to hear it! But who is counting minutes of television time? The bias of media coverage makes me turn off the television(all year)!

I like Edwards. He is leading a very strong campaign but I agree the press is not covering him. He beat Hillary in Iowa and still didn't get coverage. If you read all the comentary from the press was that he is out vs Hillary. And the reason cited wasn't his platform but the money that Hillary has. The press should take into account this and stop covering more Hillary's whining pervert husband.

WHO CARES

The way the media is attempting to subvert the electoral process by focusing only on Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton is a disgrace! The public is entitled to betterl coverage of all the candidates in order to make an intelligent choice. So far, the media has also made sure that few issues of substance get any coverage. What a farce they have made of the process. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have valid reasons to complain as do other worthy candidates who have given up. I am not ready to commit to the media stars. I am thinking of voting Independent in protest, but I most certainly will never vote for a Republican. I also find it ridiculous that so much attention is given to the creationist candidate, who would make us the laughing stock of the world when brighter lights are ignored! Eleanor Fitzgerald

Totally obvious. Just look at the "ticker" on this site where it says "filed under".
All others get their names first or alone. This shows interest of the network, not the voter. But this is understandable, after all, the media is just another hand of corporate america searching its pockets for the next dime to rub. And John Edwards is not in there so they avoid him.....

The big corporate media is a tool of the status-quo. They are being used to preserve the fortress of money that controls Washington. The media does not like Edwards because he is threat to the greed that controls Washington Many of those corporation that Edwards is critical of advertised on most of the major media outlets. It always come back to money folks. The proof of this, there is very little coverage of Edwards' campaign. Almost all the Republican candidates get more airtime than he does. But if John decides to drop out of the race that news would be all over the airways . I know John is not going to, nor should he drop out. John should fight all the way to the convention and to the white House.Let us demand more from the media, stop protecting the status-quo.

Convince Sam Nunn to be your running mate-–

Well John is right we had this issue in Iowa can you remember who came in third it was Hillary Clinton. Even though it was a precent or two but the media went for the Oboma Clinton news and not the fact she lost a state she was to win big.

the media need to cover all candidates fairly yes fairly they should look that up to get the meaning. Another person who should have been standing up for all of the candidates even Dodd & Biden should have been Howard Dean Democratic Chair, you know if he cant support and push all the candidates he should quit so we can get a different person to lead the party of the people not the press.

As we can all see from the last 8 years, BEING President requires a whole different set of skills than RUNNING for President. What we as a nation need is a one on one with each candidate where we can assess their experience and fitness for the job. That means the candidates should be allowed to speak to us freely and often, without the press filtering, editing, and spinning their words. BEING President is not a game or a popularity contest; it is simply the most important job in the world and we as a nation should be accorded the opportunity to perform due diligence on ALL the candidates, individually, not just those select few who have been anointed as "front-runners" based on their popularity. Even more, we must know which candidate has the team and the good judgement required to make thousands of political appointments of people who will run OUR government, tax OUR citizens, and execute the laws of OUR land. Popularity is the last thing I need in a President. Competence is what I'm looking for - in the next President AND in the press.

I am obviously an Obama supporter but I can see where Edwards is coming from. He makes the debates interesting but if his campaign was as interesting as his performance on debates he might get more coverage. Besides the obvious, Obama gets attention because of his life story, his qualifications (more years in office then Hillary) and the turn out for his rallies; Hillary gets attention because of her husband. If Edwards could tap into that energy (without being angry) his story would be more compelling. Good Luck:o)

Obama/(Edwards?) 08

Edwards has a legitimate reason to be upset for lack of publicity in the media.

Clinton has a legitmate reason to be upset with the media for bad publicity.

Obama is the darling of the media and has all the reason to be extremely happy with the media for not asking him tough questions and giving him a free ride.

The endorsement from media should be open and it should read like this:

MEDIA FOR OBAMA

Amen, to the Edwards Campaign! The news media (including CNN) is obsessed with anointing front runner status to the top two candidates of both of the parties and giving "short shrift" to anyone else. While I realize it is cheaper to only cover two as apposed to three or four candidates it's kinda tough "nookies" about that, it's your JOB to COVER not ANOINT! It's reality that the first viable black and woman candidates is a better story (and waaaay more sexy) than covering "another white guy", maybe, just maybe he has something to say that Americans need to hear.

Totally agree. The media makes the news, doesn't report the news. Best at the MSNBC debate.

I predict Edwards will be president one day, his best chances are in 4 to 8 years. He is still young and if he gets greater exposure in national/international politics, he'll make a hell of a well rounded candidate.

This election year: Hillary/Wesley Clark
UN Ambassador: Edwards

Possibly the first thing Edwards and I agree on! Evidence has surfaced today that FoxNews actually cut out one of Ron Paul's answers from a rebroadcast of one of their debates (one of the ones they actually let Ron Paul show up to!). The mainstream media gets more and more disgraceful by the day. I've actually switched from FoxNews to CNN... but the lack of "real issue" coverage here leaves me with little hope for the American media.

I AGREE!!!! Edwards received same percentage votes as Republican candidates named in polls but his percentages are hardly ever mentioned in articles by CNN!!!

Very timely decision, excellent move~~Edwards has gotten the shaft in terms of coverage for too long. I'm glad to see his campaign stepping up and pointing fingers.

Cry, Baby, Cry...

Personally, I am excited to see the News called to task on this. Too many good Candidates have been forced from the process and review of the people by the over zealous hype and coverage to create history, or maybe to win a pulitzer in reporting on an Afro American and a Woman. I will agree with those who stated that the media does not elect the president, but the media does sell and create the president. If one believes this is not the case, then why are we loosing more air time to commercials every year!

CNN should re-do their poll. Edwards and Kucinich, and the other Candidates, Dodd, Richardson, Biden should all take legal action and insist on an investigation of the media and it practices.

I am tried of listening about a two year senator who is a master at words with little record of accomplishment, or the potential of opening up and repeating history with putting one of two families we have dealt with over the last twenty years back into office.

This election is way too important with the problems we face as a country and the media should be educating, not selling.

The Media wants Hillary and Obama only. That will ensure the status -Quo. Edwards is probably the best thing for America, but Hillary is the chosen one.

Welcome to 4 more years of War/ 'Terror Threats'/ & threats to all other countries, while America slowly ebbs away....

True story! I completely agree with Edwards. I probably won't vote for him, but I'm impressed with his scraping and fighting in this race. And he raises a very real issue. Sure, it sounds self-serving to complain of this, but it's true. The fact that CNN has it on its website without editorial comment or excuse shows even CNN knows he has a point. Why can't the media figure out how to cover a race with more than two viable candidates? It seems to me they could, and I hope they do.

I absolutely agreee!!!! I did not even know Edwards was still in the race. I have read enought about him to give him my vote, and I feel sorry for the lack of coverage he is getting in this race......Is it because he is the only true supporter of universal health care.....????!!!!!!! Don't worry John, I'll try to spread the good word about you.

Most of the pro-Edwards comments here were obviously written by the same person. Maybe your boy should sue somebody. Or he could just channel a dead baby or two. He is the most disgusting candidate ever. Standing up to special interests? Do you not know that he is bought and paid for by the trial lawyers? The worst interest group of all. Bye-bye Johnny!!

well john is right we even had that issue her in Iowa do you remember who came in 3rd behind John Edwards it was Hillary and Bill Clinton yes they are a pair, Bill could not get in again so sent the wife.

Not only do the press need to report on all the candidates dem or rep but they need not push who they want down the throat of the people of the US.

Howard Dean Democratic National Chairman should step in and inform the uninformed press of all of the presidential candidates or he should quit and go back home where he came from, as a Democrat i think we could get a better leader of our party the party of the people not the selected few.

Also what ever happened to equal time? Has anyone stopped to think that if you but a politician on national TV all the time that politicians poll numbers will go up. Its like free advertising.

Media doens't cover Edwards becuase they want ratings and it is better ratings to have a female or African American candidate than another white male. Once the campaign gets into the red states, I think Edwards will be more competetive. There is no mistake he is neglected and marginalized by media, I am sure even if he pulls out two consecutiove wins in Nevada and South Carolina, they will still ignore him. Just shows you how out of touch from the American people the media is. They call Edwards angry and mad, maybe thats because voters are angry and mad! Bhutto gets assasinated and HRC and Obama go for the microphone and Edwards calls up Musarraf and tells him how its going to be. Sounds like a president to me.

All of you Edwards's supporters are deceiving yourselves. Have you actually look at your candidate? Sure Edwards's has a populist message that he says with anger and passion. When Edwards was a senator he had an opportunity to make change, but this is what he did on major issues that have come back to haunt him. Edwards's political record as a one-term senator is riddled with major problems. He voted for the war in Iraq 2003. He voted for Yucca Mountain to be a nuclear waste dump. He voted for the Bankruptcy Reform bill that hurts a disapportionate amount of the poor and minorities. He voted for Free trade with China. He voted for No Child Left Behind. More recently (in 2006), Edward's was working for one of the companies that Obama (and others) have touted has set up in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying US corporate taxes. Edwards made several millions from his employment with Fortress Investment Group LLC, pride of the Caymans.

Edward's 2004 speeches included talk of Two Americas. One for the rich and one for the poor. Edward's is the second richest candidate in the Presidential race among Democrats and Republicans with a net worth of $55 million. I am tired on hearing that Edward's is the son of a poor uneducated mill worker. Edwards has been a millionnaire for many years. His wife has an incurable form of cancer. Why waste time with politics when he could be spending more quality time with his wife and kids as a family?

OBAMA in '08!

I agree with John Edwards 100 percent. The News Media is really biased this election in the way they are reporting the news.
There is no doubt who they want to win the nomination and they continually slant the news in that direction. Shame on them as they are suppose to be objective.

I think I have never seen an election process so blatantly shaped by the media and pundits. Edwards is right. If the League of Women Voters were still moderating the campaign "debates" (which LWV would call forums, which is more accurate), there would be real information to cover fairly.
kristy

Let's see. I recall John Edwards whispering to Hillary Clinton "we need to kick out some of these other candidates. They just clutter the stage." What goes around comes around.

I'm voting Edwards. He is the only one who can win in the general election against any Republican. He's the only one who doesn't have to answer to all those special interests and lobbyists. If Hillary or Obama get the nomination, I'll vote Republican or possibly sit this one out. I refuse to vote for any so-called Democratic candidate that is bought and paid for by special interests because they will get NOTHING accomplished. Edwards is the only true Democrat still standing.

And Edwards would like to continue to act as if there were only three candidates in the race!

He *WANTS* the coverage Obama and Clinton have been getting lately?? I'm sure either of them would be glad to give it to him, it's not pretty.

Go Edwards! I am a supporter of Edwards and have also been "pissed" for a lack of a better word that CNN and all news outlets are not covering John Edwards. I have expressed my displeasure to CNN and have been given the corporate response. I do believe that John Edwards in our Democratic Nominee and I will support him to the Nomination and beyond. I believe the we are losing sight of what this election is all about and it is about the people and the news outlets are NOT speaking for the people. We live in a celebrity society...how sad is that. We need to wake up and take a stand. We are smarter than what the media is feeding us....have we forgoten about the war in Iraq and Afganistan?? Where is the country heading? The economy is in the tanker. These are real questions. Who really wants to answer them? I belive John Edwards is the man to help us in our time of unrest...be it global, enviornmental, or domestic. We need to clean up our act and not keep repeating the same old cowboy way politics that have plagued us for 7 and counting years.

I like Sen. Edwards a lot, but I think he should give it a rest. Perhaps throwing in his support for Obama and receive the nod for VP or a cabinet position. As for Hillary and Bill, they should do America a favor and get lost. I don't think they get it, most Americans, even more so than the media reports, think the Clintons are vile and phony. The media suggested Hillary's negatives are about 48-50%. Based on the diverse group of people I chatted with (black, white, Asian, Hispanic, old, young), her negatives are more so in the high 60's/low 70's.

Despite all of the talk about "substance" and "experience", ultimately successful politicians have charisma. If not, our presidents would be Ph.Ds and economists. Hillary has the appeal to women and the fact that she is the wife of a former president. Obama has the fact that he would be the first black president. It's superficial, yes, but it's true. The other two candidates have novelty and quite frankly, Edwards is not charismatic in the least. If he wants more media attention, he needs to either present more brilliant plans that the other two candidates are not or be more charming.

The media continues to cover most of the Republicans - not only Romney, Huckabee, and McCain, but also Thompson and Guiliani (? on spelling). Why is it that the Democratic race is just about two contenders - Clinton and Obama, while the Republican field still includes contenders who have yet to prove that they are even viable? I know that some Republican operatives have indicated that they are eager to run against Obama or Clinton; it is Edwards that they are afraid of. I do not know much about how the media operates, but I know enough to think for myself instead of letting the pundits decide who I should vote for! And I think that Obamania is to a great extent a creation of the media. In Iowa, Edwards gave a much better speech than Obama at the Harkin Steak Fry, and was just as good as Obama at the JJ Dinner, but Obama was already becoming the media favorite, so he got more coverage. And Edwards had rallies in Iowa that were SRO that got very little coverage because the race had become all about Clinton and Obama. I urge all Democrats to go to the candidate web pages and learn about their positions and make up their own minds about who is best for America instead of following the media lead.

This is what happens to Dennis Kucinich also, but ten times worse because corporate America is scared to death of having an honest President like Kucinich that isn't obligated to them, but to the people.

Cindy or kandy Crowe ly stop cuddling the Clinton. You are just jealous Obama is gonig to the white or colored house and you are left behind

I have noticed from the very beginning of the primary race that the candidates have not been fairly covered by the media. Edwards is my choice for Democratic nominee. While placing my vote on my early ballot, I felt that I might be thowing away my vote on my candidate of choice. Why? Because my news station CNN is barely giving Edwards any airtime ! I penciled in my vote for Edwards and realized that CNN is swaying my vote and I must resist. Hense, CNN you are abusing your power over fair public voting by deciding who gets airtime and who doesn't. I am so suprised that you even give Lou Dobbs airtime. Perhaps it's because it would be more obvious if you took him off the air. Your Pharmecuetical commercials make it obvious who pays your overhead and who the lobbiest are that you must answer too. Wake up and realize, this is your country too!
WE ARE KEEPING YOU HONEST CNN!!!

I agree with the Edward folks. At present I am not a supporter of any one candidate but I feel the coverage has been lopsided the way media people direct it for the sake of numbers (for the media). This whole campaign has become more a media event than a very important political event that may affect history for years to come. Why not report the things that are happening rather than speculating on what might happen? It seems to me that all I hear is "what do you think?" questions rather than "did you notice?" type questions. Just give us the news and spare us your speculation.

Thanks

Take a hint, John, and drop out.

Well Mr. Edwards, When you beat Hillary by a point in Iowa, you talked like it was a two person race also. Carma.

Warning!

This site is moderated by Obama campaign.

The media has manipulated this election into a two-way race right from the start. The Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the first five months of 2007, John Edwards received approximately one-fourth the coverage of Clinton and Obama, and the bulk of it was about his wife's illness.

But the blackout isn’t just about Edwards. Check out the PEJ study ( http://www.journalism.org/node/8187 ) and consider the invisible campaigns of great statesmen like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, as well as the enormous gap between all the positive coverage Obama has enjoyed and the high percentage of negative stories about Hillary Clinton. This is about retaining the right as citizens to pick our own president based on fair, impartial information provided by the fourth estate.

For democracy to endure, a free and fair press isn't a luxury but a necessity. Back when journalism was an honorable profession, reporters were obliged to impart information in an unbiased way. Instead we get Chris Matthews calling Hillary a "she-devil" and saying "no one would care" if Edwards did well in Iowa.

The people who claim to be unaffected by biased news coverage are the same ones who believe advertising doesn't influence the way they spend their money. (If ads didn't work, why would companies bother? They spent $385-billion on advertising, worldwide, in 2006). Unfortunately, many people "buy" the slick package they see on TV, where Obama is praised even by Republican pundits (hmmm, wonder why THEY want him to be the nominee?) while Hillary is criticized and John Edwards, ignored.

It takes time and effort to get to the facts, which is why so many people equate Edwards with Obama, believing that one is pretty much as good as the other and hey, wouldn't it be cool to have the first African-American president? Yet only Edwards has led on every major issue, including universal healthcare, energy independence, withdrawal from Iraq, and job creation. Only Edwards is a true progressive; the other candidate, as his comments about Reagan suggest, is Republican-lite. Only in rare instances has the media noticed the extent to which Obama has co-opted Edwards' ideas, including–as reported by the Boston Globe and LA Times–borrowing his language, examples, and even jokes!

(This week the pundits have been all aquiver about the economic stimulus packages released by Clinton and Obama, yet Edwards came out with his plan back in December, when he urged President Bush and Congress to take action before the country slipped into a recession.)

The democratic race is between one true leader and two followers, but you have to pay very, very close attention in order to realize this. Here's another way to phrase it–the race is between one true leader and two corporate politicians whose coffers have been lined by the oil and gas industries, the HMO's, and other monied special interests. (Check out http://www.opensecrets.org .) We have a real chance to take back our country in November 2008, but in order to do it individual voters must bypass the corporate media and seek out the truth for themselves.

Why is the modeartion not fair ?

Is CNN going to finally give John some coverage. You're as guilty as all the rest. I'm and Edwards' supporter and think it is discpicable that all the media are going after the celebrity talent intead of a guy who is saying something valuable. It's almost like some other comments that I've heard – YOU media seem to be afraid of what would happen if Edwards should win the White House. And who was the clown that said Cheney – head crook in charge – beat Edwards? He needs a reality check!!!!!

Actually, there is more going on here that meets the eye or the ear with the media and the candidate . Andy got it right, they paly it and it is a game to them, while our country's credit rating begins to dive, we continue to lose industry/jobs and continue to wrestle w/ problems concerning health care , poverty, education, global warming, terrorists, ridiculous gas prices, etc. I think that the person most in jeopardy here is Hillary. She made a comment about LBJ that was factual. After JFK's assassination, it was LBJ who pushed his Civil Rights Bills through Congress and thus they were signed into law. Certainly if Jack Kennedy had not been eliminated, he would have worked hand in hand w/ MLK. Her point, the way I heard it , was taken to illustrate that one can talk and inspire but that does not always lead to change. She has been making the point regarding Senator Obama because he has been campaigning on the change message and "unfairly" characterizing her as not being an agent of change. Though I support John Edwards, I do like Hillary and Bill and feel that she is a very capable person. Her message , that talking about change does not necessarily achieve change, is , I believe, the crux of what her remarks were based on. Not race, as the media declared! They lined up in droves to shake their fists and be heard. The media, as far as I am concerned, drove the entire mess. They had alot of help from that remark from the Clinto supporter, the African American whose name escapes now. The toxic fallout could fall on Hillary's campaign and cause people to turn off
This is no accident and I think this is one reason Bill is out their mixing it up, telling people off and settin 'em straight. Of course, I could be all wrong and maybe Bill set the whole thing up so he could have a platform and get lots and lots of coverage for his Mrs.

Americans need to not make the same mistakes as they did in 2000 and 2004.

Vote for substance. Vote for reason. Vote for fairness. Vote for the planet. Vote for your country.

Vote for John Edwards.

corporate big money GETS ATTENTION!
Hillary and Obama are bought and paid for.
The best Democratic Candidates MONEY CAN BUY.

John Edwards should not be anywhere near the presidency. I know of him from his time in North Carolina. "Johnny" Edwards was one of the most unethical malpractice lawyers that ever existed. He is a big reason that there is a health care crisis in this country and it is appalling that he acts like some "defender" of health care.I believe that Edwards is the reason Kerry lost– the day he pick Edwards as VP running mate, every medical and nursing society I know sent out emails backing Bush. So I say let's give John Edwards media coverage– of the horrible cases in which he used deceit and acting skills to derail the careers of many a doctor and many patients in North Carolina who fell victim to his "legal" tactics and abuse of law. Please...someone stop this guy!

I'm not an Edwards supporter, but the statements made by his campaign are completely accurate. The second Clinton won NH, the media took an Obama v. Clinton approach to every single story - CNN most especially. Surprised they even put this up and admitted it. It's way more entertaining and soap-opera-esque to see the daily battle of words between a woman and a black man, than the boring white guy. If Edwards were black or a woman, he'd be in the media more. Let's be honest, no one in the media pays enough attention to actual issues and the proposed policies from the candidates.

Even if he is just whining, he does have a point. He is a viable candidate and he still doesn't get the coverage that Hillary, Obama, or Romney get. Nor do some of the GOP candidates. I'm a Dem, but it's obvious that the media has favorites on both sides. Some people aren't getting coverage. I was a fan of Biden. He had something valuable to add to the coverage but didn't get any. It's a shame in AMERICAN politics that money wins you coverage and votes.

I think the Founding Fathers would be pretty upset about that.

Why is my four hour old comment still awaiting moderation when 50 comments have been posted since?

CNN I think you meant "cites", not "sites"...

Senator Edwards is absolutely right on target with this. All those who want to keep the Republicans out of the White House better wake up and see what is happening across this country. John Edwards is the ONLY candidate who can bring about real change in America. With all thats happened these last few weeks only Edwards can bring together a splintered Democrtaic party. I am from Illinois and people need to know what Obama has done for us. NOTHING!!

As an Edwards supporter in Michigan, I was quite upset with our primary. And I've noticed the same lack of Edwards coverage in the media. I have no problem with Hilary or Barack, but since my candidate appears as favorable as the others, it's discouraging that he is not covered as much as the others.

Although I probably align more with Hilary, Edwards is the most capable and willing to pull the country together and lead. Frankly, I'm surprised he's doing as well as he is with the lack of coverage. Listen up to this guy; I'm telling you, he's good.

To all who consider this only whining: What if your candidate received a media blackout? What if suddenly, no matter what channel you turned to, you never heard any mention of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? None at all? You had to rely only on their commercials for their postions on the issues. And if the media did mention their names, it would only be to say things like, "Everyone knows Hillary doesn't have a chance anymore. Back to more about the only candidate that matters, John Edwards". You know that would not be fair and that you would be upset. "Hey, they didn't mention Hillary (Obama, Thompson, etc). at all in the news today? What's up with that?"
That is pretty much how this campaign has been covered by the media since Day 1. At first, it was a "three person battle". Just ask the staunch supporters of Biden, Dodd, and Richardson here in Iowa. They each received barely any coverage from the very beginning. The media's response is that they polled low. No wonder! It's a vicious cycle. Ignore certain candidates not allowing voters to know they even exist, then show polls with little support for them, and then ignore them even more because they have low poll numbers. No brainer there. Now that they have all dropped out, largely due to the lack of free media coverage which could have helped them get their message out, Edwards is also being eliminated from coverage as the media focused on their top two darlings.
Regardless of who your candidate of choice is, it is only logical that all candidates should get equal coverage by the meda. Media coverage, i.e. free publicity, amounts to millions of dollars in savings for a candidate who then doesn't have to spend as much on commercials to get out their message.
It's too bad this was not exposed more while all candidates were still in Iowa, in time for them to get the support they might have needed. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson each have more experience than Edward, Obama, and Clinton combined, yet failed to be supported with free media attention, hurting their campaigns and helping to lead to each of them dropping out of the race.

I posted the following comment over 5 hours ago (5:39PM ET), and it is still not showing, according to another computer user. How long does it take to moderate a comment anyway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How ironic that CNN would chose to run this story, since they recently did a poll on head-to-head match-ups and left out Edwards, even though their same poll the month before showed that Edwards out-matched ALL Republicans and did better than Hillary or Obama.

I'd like to take this opportunity to again ask CNN to re-do their poll, preferably before SC, but maybe they don't want to show that Edwards might actually be leading in the head-to-heads?

When Edwards is on tv I run to look and listen. CNN, if you want me to be exposed to your advertisers, put Edwards on alot.

Whahhh, The Libertarians and Dennis Kucinich among others, have been complaining about fair and even treatment in news reports for years. Do the honorable thing Senator Edwards. If you finish third in the South Carolina primary, gracefully withdraw from the race and let the two celebrity candidates duke it out.

It's about time he speaks up on this. CNN is guilty, along with all the other corporate run media in this country. Slanted and biased, and only tell the stories they want us to hear. I have sent this same complaint to NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, and ABC News, as there is no news, just celebrity.....

Isn't there a Britney Spears headline we need to see???

Edwards already had my vote, because I'm already sick of hearing from the other candidates and their repeated non-comittal gas.

John is correct. I suspect there is a media consulting company that counts the minutes a candidate gets on TV / Radio. Lets see the report

Maybe Edwards should face the fact that he is not going to win the nomination and for the good of the party, drop out of the race (just like the other candidates who had the good sense to bow out already).

I find it amazing...the 5th estate shows what it chooses to show. If Fox claims "Fair & Balanced" then all the other networks are under the same sheets and in the same bed. At what point did we allow the media to decide who and what we will get to see. I have to listen to NPR and the BBC to get unskewed news. The Roger Ales, and all the major networks are part of the problem. They are the corporations that control the media. America, stand up and demand fair and equal coverage of the elections, without an EDITORIAL by the newscaster. Give me Walter Cronkite, or Edward R. Murrow, they reported the news, objectively something we rarely see today in any media.

Hillary all the way!!!!!

The media blackout of John Edwards is fact. Reuters had an article last week reporting that John Edwards is the most feared candidate by corporate America. Top that off with John Edwards' desire to break up the media monopolies in this country (which will also result in the return of free press). Those things don't make one popular with the media; their blackout of his presidential campaign is the proof thereof.

Poll after poll has long shown John Edwards as the most likely Dem candidate to defeat all of the Rep contenders, but do any of the networks report that information? No, we only hear about the biased ones done in-house that exclude Edwards from the equation. By excluding him and the other remaining candidates, the in-house polls are completely skewed anyway but we aren't supposed to give any consideration to that fact because they prefer to believe that we are all just as ignorant as they would like for us to be. I must admit it is working pretty well so far based on this election's results alone.

Nor are we supposed to realize how badly we are being cheated or manipulated by those inside a position of power that used to be worthy of respect. Freedom of the press does not, nor did it ever, imply that the press/media is free to manipulate us!!

The sad thing is that it is the American people who are losing out by not being informed on any level that allows them true free choice. When in the world did journalists and reporters lose their ethics and completely succumb to the power trip of 'making' a candidate? ... When did it become their job to not report the news as it happened, but to influence it, spin it, and influence our decision making process? Hmmm...., just about the same time the term media mogul became common speak, huh?

Goodness, some of the most respected networks (including CNN) have their commentators voicing opinions on their own shows and guesting on other shows within the network to comment on matters of extreme importance such as national security and the economy. It's as if there was validity as to why America should listen to them on a given topic more than they should listen to their grocer. What are their true qualifications to do more than to report the facts to the American public?

The news for just the last week - half the time the newscasters are espousing opinions as if they are educated, respected economists who have a worthy opinion about the recession instead of having no more education or expertise in the field than the people viewing them at home. Do we really need to know which of the candidates the newscaster believes has the most viable plan? (What if they failed their econ class? Do you really think they are going to report that fact?) Should it influence us any more than what our classmate who had to be tutored in mathematics to graduate thinks or the neighbor down the block whom we really know nothing about? ... Nope. Yet there is no disclaimer advising the viewing audience that "Hey, we're just pretending to know what we are talking about up here behind this news anchor's desk. Your guess is truly as good as ours, but it sounds really good so keep listening to us and let us help you make the most important decisions in your life."

Don't let the 'entertainment factor' influence your vote for president. Take the time to carefully research each of the candidates and their platform and plans for this nation. Our future depends upon it.

After considering the above-mentioned factors and more - yes, I wholeheartedly agree with John Edwards.

Vote Edwards '08

The media seems to cover every Republican candidate – down to the miniscule vote getter Fred Thompson. It does seem odd that Edwards is getting substantively less coverage than Hillary and Obama. For all that its awesome that we finally have a viable woman and black candidate (and it is awesome) – its equally alarming that a viable white male is being marginalized. Give them all equal play – let us decide.

I totally agree!!! Wake up America! This is the fleecing of America to suggest that there are only 2 candidates, and they both scare me to death!! One flips flops, and the other is a REPUBLICAN in Democrats clothing. People are forgetting this. The BIG 2 are probrably good folks, but they scare me. John is the top Dem for the job in my opinion. He is the peacekeeper between Hillary and Obama, LMAO! For crying out loud: JOHN, JOHN, JOHN!!!!!! Have already submitted my absentee ballot in Missouri and went to John Edwards all the way. John you have my support here in Missouri. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! With Hillary you the corporate Dem and Obama you have the Dick Cheney puppet in office, what a joke!!! If Hillary or Obama win the primary, I am voting for John McCain. I have been a Republican all my life, that is until George W Bush come along, sneaky snake!!! He should have been impeached along time ago!! To me, he does not install the good family values that I have cherished all my life. I do not care anymore for which side is right, I just vote for who I think is best suited for the job. I do not care if they are black, purple, green, etc. It is time for a woman, but the right woman. Hillary is not the right woman for the job. They have talked about her 35 years, what 35 years????? Seems to me she just became a Senator in 2000? Come on America you can do better than that. The media is playing favorites with these candidates, and I do not care what they say, because i only believe about half of what they say anyway. Polls are stupid also. They do not tell the whole truth either!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that the media should be more even handed in their approach to reporting on politicians running for office. Every marketing person knows that the more you pound the "brand name" into the public consciousness, the greater likelihood that they will reach for that brand – not because it's better but because they've heard it so often.

Candidates that don't have a large following are routinely ridiculed during coverage or are just plain ignored. The big name candidates are asked entertainment magazine level questions or give 20 seconds to describe complex issues. Then the press asks why there aren't more or better candidates running. Come on News Media – show us your stones. Return to your responsibility of impartially reporting all of the news not just the sensational or the sound byte that pervades the news scene today. You could be instrumental in raising the level of political debate and creating a better America. You could be reporters and journalists again.

The myriad of Republican candidates get lots of media coverage, but with the Democrats, it's the Hillary and Obama show. The media is supposed to be honest. Instead, I can't tell the difference between news and editorial anymore. Edwards is definitely a news story and should be included. We want to see clips from his stump speeches, etc... The media has been giving Huckabee a ton of coverage which started way before he was a blip on the radar. Oh, and the polls, they were wrong not just in New Hampshire, but in Michigan too. Every news source was reporting that McCain and Romney were neck and neck, tied. Well, that was way off from the polls. Yet, the media doesn't talk about that either. The American people need to exercise free will and vote for who is best for America, not who is up in the media-driven popularity contest or polls.

WOW! Really?!?!?! Could it be that because John Edwards is the best viable anti-corporate candidate right now, that corporate owned media outlets including CNN are purposely ignoring him? Or could it just be that the corporate owned media would prefer a more friendly Republican, so they promote the woman and the man of color, hoping that the country won't elect them? Something's got to change!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!

Edwards is sucking up to Obama anyway. ... If Obama get the nomination he is hoping to get on the ticket as a VP because that is only way he will ever sniff the White House. ...

Isn't it unethical to be outright dependent on the media to promote your candidacy and especially to whine about the lack of coverage you're getting! How interesting it would be if the media was banned altogether from advertising or reporting any political candidate's activities, i.e. no coverage for any of them. I wonder how the candidates would reach the voters.

Sen. John Edwards is absolutely correct about the media vacuum he exists in. I am surprised that the anchors at CNN and MSNBC particularly are not embarrassed at the poor job they have done at giving him fair coverage. As I have been watching the coverage of the primary races, I have been deeply disappointed by the media's race to anoint Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, leaving out not only Sen. Edwards, but also Gov. Richardson, Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd, Sen. Gravel, and Rep. Kucinich from their coverage and analysis. All of these men have solid credentials and good ideas, and they deserved to be heard from. I have been most displeased by the debate formats that give 60% or more of the questions and time to two candidates, leaving just scraps for the others. No wonder they couldn't get decent traction for their candidacies.

That is just like CNN right now. At the top of their political page it has
OBAMA & CLINTON.....You don't see EDWARDS now tell me that's not baised.

Good for John Edwards! It's about time. Other candidates, such as Dennis Kucinich has tried to raise this issue, but the media are so dogged at focusing on the "super stars" they forget about the candidates who really have the best messages. That's media for you; bought and sold, just like the candidates themseles.

I couldn't agree with John Edwards more – in fact, I've been railing on these CNN blogs for many weeks about just this! Come on media folks – if you "ignored" either Hillary or Obama and gave Edwards the big spot-light, you'd be accused of sexism or racism. So what gives?

John Edwards is the strongest presidential candidate I have seen in my 40+ years of voting.

In those 40+ years of voting, I have seen the introduction of cable television and expanded "news" services. I remember a time when television networks actually had news divisions and I remember when the news divisions were incorporated into the entertainment divisions the first step toward making the news "more entertaining," giving the news more pizzazz, and in reality introducing a self-destructive competition for ratings and the higher revenues that accompanied the higher ratings. I remember a time when the 6:00 news was all we thought we needed to stay abreast of the major happenings in the world.

We have been drugged by the media and its corporate driven priorities. We have been given 24 hours of news, not because we needed it but because it meant 24 hours of advertising.

We have been lied to and mislead. Something we once thought relatively reliable is showing an ugly, sinister side. What does fair and balanced really mean?

The Veteran's Administration tells us that hundreds of thousands of veterans are homeless. This disturbing information should prompt outrage and shame among the public. Instead, we get television commentators questioning the information, discrediting it, laughing about it. This gives us a very good picture of where we are as a nation today.

The media, like our voting processes, has left us in doubt. This doubt, this uncertainty causes anxieties that we are unable to resolve. These anxieties turn to fear, a general fear that something is not right.

I want to be well informed, but my avenues are clogged with news stories about presidential candidate cleavage and enticing headlines in the main stream media that I used to associate with only the smarmiest publications. Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 45 years knows that something is wrong in our beloved country.

John Edwards is speaking truth to power. He is speaking up for the all citizens of the United States, CEOs, what's left of our great middle class, and for the homeless and disenfranchised. He is speaking to the high purposes our founding fathers set in writing for us.

For this reason and for this reason only he is being marginalized. He is threatening to the status quo.

John Edwards is not a perfect human being. He is a caring human being. As he said in 2003, "America works best when it works for all of us."

No truer words were ever spoken.

So why isn't America working for all of us?

From the comments here, it sounds like most of us see the problem. What are we going to do about it?

I'm hoping someone on the evangelical Christian right can answer some questions that have been bothering me for quite sometime.

Around election time a central issue always seems to be abortion, same sex marriage, and the more general category often referred to as moral values. Having endured almost eight years under the Bush administration that was voted in on the promotion of these and other values, we have witnessed the following results:

In 2006 the US had the highest child poverty rate in the developed world. Military spending has increased from 400 billion/ year to 650 billion per year. Stuck in a war that has a cost approaching 500 trillion dollars. Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded. 700,000 Iraqis killed and 4 million refugees. Has intentionally neglected environmental matters for the profit of corporations. Nothing has been done to help the middle and lower classes- 90% of the population shares one third of the nation's assets. Highest percentage of population without access to health care in the developed world. We have found ourselves in a world of declining energy reserves and escalating energy costs, while making absolutely no efforts towards a sustainable plan.

Now I'm not saying abortion, same sex marriage, and moral values are not important. I respect these points of view and the values associated with each. But sometimes I feel that people can be so focused in one area while all other issues are ignored. Before you pass me off an ignorant Liberal sinner, please honestly consider the following.

Why is life in a foreign nation worth so much less than an unborn American child? Why do we care more about if Fred and Bill get married, than reducing the daily pressures of the average family with both a Mom and Dad? Why do we treat our veterans like trash when they return from a war that was sold on a lie? What makes a CEO worth 240 times more than their workers? How does a religious belief in the end of the world justify the neglect of the planet and the quality of life for future generations? Who decides that the wealth of a nation should be mortgaged to impose rules on a country or region with greater energy resources? These are just a few....

A group of people can claim certain values, but I believe their actions and eventually history will reveal who they really were. For the future of our World, the trick for voters will be figuring this out before having to endure it again. I don't think we can do this again.

If worse comes to worse for Edwards, not for America.
Obama for President.

With over 90% of the delegates still available, most media have written him off. They haven't just suggested it, they have downright said he is out.
That is a shame.
If worse comes to worse Obama/Edwards sounds like a great team to me.

Amen Edwards, Stand up for your self. That's whats wrong with politics is the media. The media pushes who they are for to try to get people to vote their way. The media has left Edwards out of the picture through the whole political campaign. I have said from the beginning that the media was against you and pushes Obama & Clinton. The media is behind a lot of the USA problems. Especially political they know what they broadcast has a big influence on the way people votes and that is what their aim is. The media should not be allowed to make a voice on the decision at all. It makes me sick the way they tell everything.
Just like the war they tell things about us that should not be broadcasted at all. Knowing that other countries can hear. (DUH) We are being taken over by the media and other countries right now. People in America and in the White House need to wake up before we are taken over completely.
My self I am for Edwards and I don't vote for someone just because they are a front runner.
Edwards to me is more for the people then any one on the ticker. He reminds me in a lot of ways of President Kennedy. Whom was a very good man.
Edwards has been treated very unfairly on this campaign.
Good Luck Edwards I wish you the best and hope you can pull this over and get PRESIDENT. Then maybe you can stop some of this garbage. For sure someone needs to get a hand on it. I think you are the man that can do it.
Good Luck
V Gray / Democrat / WV

More news coverage of Edwards will only reveal his ultra-liberal policies he's been attempting to mask in his attacks on Clinton. Most Americans do not favor his policies or his candidacy. It's really that simple. Just ask Dennis Kucinich.

Even though I currently support Obama, I agree Edwards is not getting fair treatment by the media. John Edwards is being given short shrift. It is not fair to him or the American people.His views and campaign deserve the same media attention Obama and Clinton are getting. The media is shaping this election as a Clinton-Obama vs. the Republican candidate. It shouldn't be that hard to cover the Edward's campaign. I do urge the media to be fair and give Edwards the same coverage as Obama and Clinton.

I'm supporting Hillary but completely agree that Edwards is getting less coverage than he deserves !

I agree that the media wants Obama to be president.

It is very obvious that SOME in the media are using Obama's candidacy as an excuse to attack Hillary. Sen. Obama deserves respect and should not be used as a tool to attack Hillary.

The media reports harassment of candidates/spouses with headlines like:
1. Edwards LASHES OUT at the Media
2. Bill Clinton LASHES OUT
3. Romney LOSES COOL with reporter

Intensely harassing people and recording their upset response is sooo tabloid !!!

The media should report the news and not try to make it....
i.e. Pravda was a joke and our media is crossing into that territory.

Kudos to Duncan Hunter (I don't agree with his politics) for his comments at a recent press conference in response to excluding him from debates/coverage despite that fact that less than 1% of voters had gone to the polls.

Hillary knows what to do and has the vigor to get it done !!!
GoHillaryGo !!!

The word is "cites" not "sites."

Charles in Salt Lake, Ut. My support will not go to a candidate, that uses Ronald Reagan as the President who he'd like to imitate. Obama has lost his mind, RR was
anti union, anti-human being, anti poor and no memory. He put the veterans in the
street,. ignored the disease (AIDS) that would end up killing thousands of people. Signed agreements with Mexico which would lead to more drug trade. He changed the country alright, but for the worst.
This is Obama example as a president for change, he want to be like. Heaven
help this country.

John Edwards is 100 percent correct in his claims. The media and CNN have been giving him little coverage and almost as if his campaign is non existent. It appears the media has decided that this is a two man race whether it is or not. just because they say so and fanning the flames of either race or sex is more profitable for the ratings. Like at the debate the other night they asked him what is the lone white male supposed to do ? Well, the obvious is get ignored unfortunately.
The whole election coverage is skewed and I presume we can look forward to more biased coverage of ignoring Edwards, praising and skipping over anything substantive or controversial re Obama, and more Bill and Hillary negativity ad nauseum. Sadly, the media has decided their judgement is more important than the voter's right to hear unbiased coverage and reporting of all the candidates platforms and proposals rather than the constant personality digs of one and the praises of another.

Prediction: John Edwards will continue to fight against the media blackout of his appearances, comments, speeches, and policies.

Major media are the large corporations. Rather than see the long term benefits of changing the emphases of policies and implementation of the federal government, selfish and greedy large corporations focus on the immediate losses they may sustain. With the immediate losses in mind, they cannot let John Edwards' message get out, especially not to the middle and lower income traditional republican voters who will understand that they have been screwed by republicans for almost 30 years.

John Edwards is really a galvanizing force against whom the media can only recon by blacking him out. We will continue to fight for space in the news, commentary, editorials, etc. Greedy corporate media (and their failure to forego a few tax cuts and minor regulation for the future of this country) will not prevail. Edwards' message will get out, and the support for him will be massive!

I'm surprised CNN even covered this story! Bravo, CNN! Bravo!

GO JOHN EDWARDS!

ONE WOULD THINK WITH ALL THE NATL MEDIA (INCLUDING CNN) DISCUSSING POLLING TO DEATH THAT FAIR COVERAGE WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN POLLS SHOWING EDWARDS BEATING ALL THE REPUBS WITH LARGER MARGINS ... I GUESS FAIR AND BALANCED IS NOT LIMITED TO FOX.

Edwards has a legitimate reason to be upset for lack of publicity in the media.

Clinton has a legitmate reason to be upset with the media for bad publicity.

Obama is the darling of the media and has all the reason to be extremely happy with the media for not asking him tough questions and giving him a free ride.

The endorsement from media should be open and it should read like this:

MEDIA FOR OBAMA

Elizabeth Edwards nailed this many months ago...Paraphrase: The media can't resist the temptation to focus on the 'first female and the first african american'. If I were looking to write an exciting story to sell a magazine, I'd probably do the same.

But when it comes time to focus on which candidate would be the best president, I would hope they'll go beyond all this glitz and glamour and seriously focus on who would make the best president. John Edwards has qualities far and above the other two – and the American people can see and feel it.

God help us all, Elizabeth. This election couldn't be more important and the people must choose their candidate BASED ON THE MERITS. The media thinks they get to choose our next president, they have IGNORED John, and it's plain wrong. It disgusts me and I will never vote for either H or B.

GO JOHN GO......We're with you all the way to OUR White House!

It may be true that Edwards is getting less media coverage, but it doesn't bother me in the least. Number one, he's an extremely boring guy, and secondly, he's got that incredibly annoying accent. The most exciting thing about this campaign is that, within a few short months, we won't have to hear about John Edwards ever again, for the rest of our lives. And that is a wonderful thing. While I'm at it, Hillary is totally overrated. If she were not married to Bill, no one would have ever heard of her. She wouldn't be a senator either. Obama is smart, articulate, has his ego in check, and can learn on the job. The Repubs are a bunch of schmucks.

Edwards raises an excellent point. I don't feel that the media has been as responsible and even-handed in their election coverage as they should be. I would like to see more coverage of Edwards, and more in-depth coverage and more challenging questions about all of the candidates. The media, and CNN in particular, needs to recognize the power it has in this election. They need to ask themselves repeatedly if they are being fair, complete, and truthful in their coverage.

John Edwards has a legitimate complaint. In my opinion, since the news media is such a powerful force in this country, it has an obligation to fairly cover the candidates. As a concerned citizen I would like to hear about all of the candidates. Furthermore, I would really like to see articles about real issues. I'm getting really tired of seeing whole articles dedicated to the analysis of Hillary's wardrobe, and vapid articles about Obama's platform of change (when in fact, Edwards, Clinton and Obama share seemingly identical messages). Please tell us more about what Edwards stands for.

I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton but if Edwards should get the same coverage.
I voted for Edwards in 2004,during the primary

Edwards is only a progressive for expediency, there is nothing sincere about his leftist position. He thought this purely as his best winning strategy this time around but he did not count on the popularity and MSM, particulary CNN, adoration of Obama. Thus his leftist "progressivism", which would normally have played well in the anti-establishment (anti-Bush) climate, instead fell flat. Bad calculation and thank goodness for that, in the end his candidacy has only helped Obama and Hillary both, ironically. And his current whining clearly signals his demise is imminent. GO HILLARY 2008!!

Clinton is the best choie to run the country in BOTH parties.

She isnt going to win .

getting ELECTED is one thing

being the BEST president is another

Obama is going to win the presidency. Its all about getting elected.

Who CARES if he can do the job.

My next vote in 2012 is going to be for Scarlett Johansson. She is by far more electable than Obama could ever dream of.

I agree with John Edwards and like to see a Edwards Ticket either a Clinton Edwards or John Edwards Clinton or Obama Edwards or a Edwards Obama Ticket.Yes I agree all the news channels are not giving John Edwards enough media coverage to get him any awarness in the national audience except when it comes to debates.

Reading all of your posts, I wonder if CNN, as part of the MSM, is actually LISTENING?

Or is it just another way to have us believe that someone listens & respects our opinions?
Do they care a whit what we feel? ? Probably not, which is the most sickening & frustrating idea of all.

Great post, Andy from New York ! You said it all very well.

All the attention the media has given Hilary has been bad -They only give good media to Obama- It's a shame how they have treated Hilary and Edwards. I don't even like the sound of Chaffey's voice. Go Hillary!!!!! Are they afraid they will be called raciest if they do any bad reporting on Obama?

The Edwards campaign is correct. As several people have mentioned, however, in a race where the first viable African-American is running and the first viable woman is running, a white dude just isn't that interesting. I also think he might be past his political prime.

It will be interesting, though, if he has a good showing in Nevada where all three are very close in the polls (if they can be trusted).

He looks GORGEOUS !!

He's absolutely right. It's been painfully obvious since the Iowa caucus, but it's not surprising at all. The media seem more interested in rumor, innuendo, and the spurious glamor of the likes of Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise, and Brittany Mills than reporting real news that matters.

I totally agree that the media is ignoring John Edwards. I've wondered when someone would mention it. Come on media, including you CNN. Wake up! Give equal coverage. He did win Iowa!

Kathy

It's common sense: If Americans wanted to hear about John Edwards, THEY WOULD HAVE SENT HIM MONEY TO RUN A CREDIBLE CAMPAIGN.

Don't blame the media too much on this one.
The American people have spoken by not funding the ever-angry Edwards, who is always looking a fight.

Maybe we should send Edwards to the bad lands of Pakistan to go retrieve those maniac muslims, since he loves to 'fight' Americans that much. lol

Obama stole the union members away from John Edwards who worked his heart out for them....they turned their back on them.....then Obama comes out and says the he thinks Ronald Reagan was a great President...a visionary....wow.....Reagan...who was the biggest union buster in history!!!!!!!!!!!!!...smart going Culinary workers!!!! You all should be ashamed of yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As an Edwards supporter I of course agree wholeheartedly with the campaign's assertions about the media coverage. It's about time you all used some of that great backbone, now keep going! And thanks to all of the non-supporters who recognize the truth of the situation- at least you're being objective and not calling him a whiner (talk about playground taunts!). I persoanlly want my fellow citizens to decide who the next president should be, not CNN or MSNBC.

Who is this John Edwards guy?? Huh? I've been watching CNN for the last 3 month straight and they have not mentioned him. I just know something about a Hilary and Obama "slugfest".

Seriously....CNN, you guys are losing it. I can;t help but watch...but it's like the supermarket tabloids...it's not right but you have to look.

Very very sad.

This is exactly what is wrong with this country. Edwards is calling people out and the people of the United States are too stupid to listen. The general public here listens to what the media feeds them day in and day out, just like a trained doggy. Or they listen to Oprah who knows all. I think Edwards is an excellent canidate, it is two bad the media does focus on the two celebrity canidates who have all the money. People are just to brainwashed and trained to know the difference. What a sad state our country is in.

Considering the fact that Edwards is the only candidate that stands a chance at beating a republican in the general election, all democrats should be infuriated at the media's treatment of his candidacy. When the democrat candidates were pitted against the republican candidates in the polls, Edwards was the only one that won. Obama's anti-gun policy and his association with a radical church will prevent him from winning in a general election. As for Hillary, you either love her or you hate her, and there are many more that hate her in this nation than those that love her. I am voting for who I think will win a general election and that person is John Edwards. I know that we love to see milestones happen (a female candidate or an African-American candidate), but I don't want those milestones to happen at the expense of this general election. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want another 8 years of a republican White House!

Besides, I don't know how many of you out there make six figures, but I sure don't! Edwards is the only candidate who is capable of empathizing with the working class. Since when has Hillary or Obama had to work in order to put food on the table or has worried over whether or not they will be able to pay for a doctor's appointment? This nation has real problems and we need a president with real solutions!

the powers that be (control the media) want to perpetuate patriarchy, misogyny and racism...so they put down hillary and put a positive spin on obama..get the woman out and keep the black man because obama will not win a general election...hillary may...

by dividing the democratic party, THEY are making sure that women and blacks stay were they belong...

Edwards should stop whining so much. He will not win the presidential bid and I sincerely doubt he will be considered much less accepted to be the vice presidential candidate simply because he was on the ticket four years ago and LOST!!

On top of all of that, John Edwards is not a stirring nor charismatic politician. His speeches put you to sleep. Hillary is a woman (at least we think so) and so she automatically (whether we come out and say so or not) gets more attention. Barack Obama is young, black, and charismatic in the way he delivers speeches. I'm a firm conservative but even I have to admit that Obama can deliver a speech and stir a crowd to their feet.

I'd say by late spring or early summer, Edwards is totally out of it...wait he already is.

Dear John Edwards:

Welcome to the US presidential elections. An event merely monitored by the Federal Elections Commission, but actually dictated by the US media houses which influence voters based on reportages and instant polls.

If there is anyone out there who thinks the US media just reports news, s/he needs a dose of reality. The US media MAKE news when there is no news, and they can MAKE or BREAK a person, including a politician.

Right now, they are having fun MAKING Obama and Clinton, and at any time of their choosing they can BREAK either of them.

Campaigning, to the media, is a game in which they are the referees; they make all the calls and can determine who wins and who loses.

Please understand, therefore, if you are not receiving the sort of coverage you think you should, then it is your choice to play a game whose momentum is sustained exclusively by the media. Maybe they don't find you that attractive a player who deserves playing time, so if you're feeling 'benched' it's their game to call. Sorry and good luck!

Andy, (Republican)
New York

Hey From The North,

That is why you are a canadian. Stay out of American politics.

Please cover all the candidates. Edwards will be a great President.
Its a 3 person race !!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't feel too sorry for Edwards. He holds all the cards in this race for the nomination. Assuming he drops out before the February 5 "Super Tuesday", his decision about supporting Clinton or Obama will decide the race. My advice to these campaigns: Be very nice to John Edwards!

Edwards is right the media is ignoring him because they want Clinton or Obama to get the nomination because they know Clinton or Obama will lay down and obey corporate demands. Edwards is they only real candidate running the rest are nothing more than special interest puppits who will continue waging war against the middle class. Wake up Americans if Edwards loses the nomination or the presidency your future will be very bleak, unless you happen to be in the top 2 percent of wealth.

To Adam Stiff:

Actually, John Edwards is for public financing of campaigns, which would certainly help third parties like the Greens or Libertarians, and anyone interested in true democracy.

as. again, i voted for mr edwards in2004.. i will not again,, speaking for the poor and mill workers .. i live in the county of moore in north carolina,, have not seen him here since 2004.. ,, but i did ride by that mini town he calls home, GOODNESS GRACIOUS..where does one find each other...i see HILLARY , as a moment of identity here in America,, can she do what she has learned over the past 25 years,, i think so,, so please , vote with a heart that has conviction, and vote ,, for hillary,, btw john should leave politics , and become a lawyer again,, then he really can buy his way to the office......or be asked to be the next vp

If Obama and Clinton continue to fight with each other, they won't get my vote!

What I am seeing/hearing is two people who don't get along. How are they going to work together if one of them becomes president?

How is the one who becomes president going to get along with other people?

Hilarious that a liberal Democrat like Edwards would complain about media coverage. Try being a conservative Republican. They hardly ever cover you, and when they do it's almost uniformally negative, unless, of course, it suits their purposes to actually be objective.

My husband was involved in politics in North Carolina and we have met Senator Edwards. We know people who know about his ethics and desire to make this country a better place for all of us. John Edwards would be a great president! The news coverage has been VERY UNFAIR to Senator Edwards. Since I have retired I watch the news several times a day and it appears they are for Obama. They try their best to stir up friction between the candidates. They must be for the corporate candidates because their coverage is NOT FAIR! It appears only Clinton and Obama are running and they do not try to hide their opinions. The news is suppose to be fair coverage for all. Everyone should send their protests to the news media regarding their unfair coverage not only involving Senator Edwards but Governor Huckabee, Ron Paul and others.

The reason is because never before an african american and a woman are at the forefront. History deserves its attention. John Edwards needs to change his sexuality so we could further observe the specimens of sex, gender, and race....then we could have a full blown sideshow. Gay rights could be at the forefront....etc. The gay vote would be an issue. Women could have their vote. And African Americans could have their say.

It would be like the cover of a UCLA recruitment flyer...come one, come all.

It's unfortunate that the Edward's camp doesn't realize that it is his message that is not resonating with the American public, not his lack of press coverage. He's become an angry campaigner, focused on issues that impact a very small segment of our national community.

His voting record is a disaster. He has apologized for more than 20 votes made while he was a senator. He did not seek re-election because he knew that he would not win. He does not have the judgement to be president, as he frequently gets it wrong.

He has a lovely family, and would make a great Attorney General or Secretary of Labor, but he does not have what it takes to be president.

I AGREE THAT THE PRESS HAS NOT BEEN FAIR IN THEIR COVERAGE OF THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN. THE LAST STRAW FOR ME WAS THIS WEEK WHEN THE NEWS ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET WAS ALL ABOUT THE RACE AND GENDER WAR. IF THE COVERAGE WAS FAIR THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE REPORTED ABOUT THE OTHER CANDIDATES.

My only comment is that the reporter needs to learn the difference between 'site' and 'cite'. In the context used about John Edwards, the reference should have been 'cite'.

Media coverage is outrageously unfair and baised toward candidates that are prefered by the large corporate owners of the mainstream media.

This must be stopped, immediately, and fair, equal, balanced coverage must replace what has been happening.

I guess I'll jump on the bandwagon too!

I completely agree that there is a biased slant in the media againt John Edwards. I think he is an awesome candidate!

How awesome would an Obama-Edwards presidential ticket be?! I'm hoping the two of them bring their campaigns together.

And if Obama or Edwards fail to get the party nomination, and Hillary wins it,....then I'll be voting for the Republicans!!

In fact, now that I think about it, I wonder if this is a ploy by ol' Johnny – he is seeing how Kucinich's exclusion has led to a huge grassroots following, so now he thinks it'll work for him.

seams to me that CNN and FOX has Clinton and Obama in the White house before NOV 2008 so who is the Pres and who is the vice Pres, thats the way it is these days MONEY it's MONEY so these two Clinton and Obama r paying these big new Co BIG bucks to keep all ther other out of the NEWS that's what BUSH did Right.

I say give the others the Sames thay may not Pay the big Bucks but this is the USA not the other Country's that Pay the NEW to show on One side or are we getting there

Yes, shame on the media, including CNN, who have continuously
treated John Edwards as a non-candidate. It appears that the corpor-
tions, who happen to own most of the news media, does not want
Edwards to be a contender in the presidential race. It is about time
this whole disgraceful drama is being exposed. The corporations have
us all where they want us. Edwards means true change and reform
in this country. We can only pray for our country. The corporations are
running everything. I wish people would open their eyes.

Hey Omar – it's Cheney, not Cheyney. Who's the idiot now?

I voted for Dennis Kucinich today (FL early voting).

With a paper ballot, mind.

He also is not getting any coverage. In fact, when he sued NBC so he might be in the Las Vegas debate, and a judge ruled that he should be allowed to debate or an injunction would be issued to pull the plug on the debate, NBC appealed it and got some hotshot attorney who took it to the Nevada Supreme Court who ruled no, NBC had a right to exclude candidates.

RIDICULOUS

So why isn't the ENTIRE Dem party standing up to make sure that EVERY Dem that is running is heard??

Well gee, now he knows how Kucinich feels!

Edwards is the best candidate for the Democrats. I truly believe that when Democrats go to vote that they will not vote for a woman nor an African American. I only feel this will be a recipe for another Republican victory.

I 100% agree that John Edwards is being done a huge disservice by the media- even on CNN the headlines keep blaring "Clinton" this and "Obama that" – or my favorite: "Clinton and Obama battle it out" – as if the press feels the right to dictate to the American public who is worth thinking about. This is a democracy, people – and all candidates deserve coverage until they cease being candidates. Why doesn't the news media let the people decide who they want to think about based on all the information that SHOULD be available to us? Sure Clinton and Obama are battling – but so is John Edwards. Even those candidates in the single digits deserve a platform, but Edwards is a lot closer to taking on the big-money candidates than the press would have us think. Shame on you, media people, for taking away our right to see "all the news thats' fit to print"!

Edwards is right. All you hear about is Obama & Clinton. I wouldn't vote for Clinton as a dog catcher. I like Edwards, but if they are going to completely ignore him I will vote Republican. : – ( And where did I read that Obama won't put his hand over his heart or salute during the national anthem? Mr. Edwards seems like a "normal" guy, with more experience than the other two candiates. Also he is sooo cute. : – ) Go John

Mad Gramma

It is absolutely true that the media chooses the candidates. They choose who to cover and whom to exclude. Very obviously with recent debates on both CNN and Fox news, Fox News excluding Ron Paul from it's televised debate while Ron Paul consistenly has more votes and more money then Rudy Guilianni, And the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the CNN Democratic debates. The Democratic process is severly comprimised and the discussion becomes limited. It appears to be the media making their choice and then finding the best way to make it happen. Pot stirring and repeating inflamatory sound bites while ignoring facts and issues. It is disheartening and i think harmful to the democratic process. I think more and more voters become disallusioned and tune out due to the limited and the biased accounts of the media.

Edwards is absolutely right and all the other Democratic candidates and those who supported them should not hesitate to make the exact same complaint! Bill Richardson was also ignored by the media.

I find the media's coverage of this primary season extremely biased towards their preferred candidates. They don't report the news, they make news, they are the news, they are in the news. They invent questions, turn them into "issues" and force them into the debate. They lead this country around by the nose. They invented Hillary's "crying" spell even though she never cried and it was much ado about nothing. They persist in bringing race and gender into the discussion as if they're trying to pick a fight.

Enough is enough!

I think all but the top 3 canditates from each party should throw in the towel.

Do you really think John Edwards would really go for VP after last time? I think Obama Edwards would be a great choice.

I am appalled by the lack of media coverage of the Edwards campaign. Edwards is a serious candidate with both a strong base of support and thoughtful, passionate and well-articulated political positions. I am disgusted by the lack of coverage. Of course, it is the very consolidation of media which is part of the problem - a politically enabled condition which Edwards has opposed.

John Edwards deserves equal media coverage because he has earned it!
I am glad that John has publicly said something about the poor media coverage!

All NEWS NETWORK, need to understand that they don't elect president. It's the people decision to elect their president.

FAIR MEDIA COVERAGE FOR JOHN EDWARDS

GO JOHN GO!!!!!!

Yes, Edward did not get that much coverage.

I agree with John Edwards 100%. Unfortunately his positions don't really "mesh" with the interests of the corporate-controlled media, though, so he'll have an uphill battle trying to get his voice heard.

And they wonder why people don't vote or take the process seriously anymore.

Mr. Edwards is right. I'm an Obama supporter but the media should give him equal coverage when the numbers are as close as they are in some states.

Welcome to Ron Pauls world.

I completely agree with John Edwards. The media is so focused on Obama and Hillary they are completing ignoring John Edwards. I'mbeginning to hate so-called
liberal media like CNN and MSNBC. Maybe he'll get more coverage on Fox since he's just a white man after all. Not exciting like a woman or a black man..

I'm voting for John Edwards!!!!!!

A first in race, a first in gender...and...well...then there's a legitimate candidate who can take the White House. Oh well, it'll be neat when we have the first african american or woman Democratic nominee, but how neat will it be when we all realize we've overlooked substance and the Republican machine walks all over that celebrity candidate?

Dig a little deeper, folks. As much as I'd love see the kind of breakthrough that's promised with a Clinton or Obama nomination, I'm not going to allow it to blur the reality of this situation. Edwards is the one who has the right stances AND the ability to win. As much as I wish it wasn't true, we have to have a candidate willing to really fight and that's not going to happen with one of the big two. You think all the damage this country has suffered over the past two terms is going to disappear with promises of "hope" or a woman who can't remove herself from the beltway's undertow? I mean, aren't YOU a bit "angry" over how things have gone down with this current administration? Why not elect a candidate who represents those frustrations and desire to yank back the reins?

We can only "hope" that Edwards pulls off some kind of miracle.

Edwards isn't my first choice (second) but he's exactly right about this. The media has consistently ignored him, even when he's been in a dead heat with Obama and Clinton in certain polls.

I was just reading this article when at the bottom, it read...

Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • John Edwards

Irony?

I think John Edwards is right. I have been following the election coverage since it started and I think the press does focus on Clinton and Obama. I also feel that CNN is in favor of Obama because they seem to only post the positive stories and the negative ones for Clinton. I am in favor of Clinton first and Edwards was my second choice but he was so negative there for awhile I'm not so sure now. Personal I think Clinton/Edwards would be good. I also want to point out to you folks that we truely need someone in office that has experience. We DO NOT have another 4 years for someone that has almost 0 experience or this country is headed for disaster.

John Edwards is correct in his observation of the media. He is the most electable candidate in the general election and yet democrats may blow it again by nominating a weaker candidate. Half the country hates Clinton and Obama would couldn't carry any red state. When included in CNN poll against republican candidates John Edwards beats everyone. Clinton loses to McCain and Obama ties him. Carl Rove said he think the republicans can beat the top two leading candidates for the democrats in the general election but failed to mention John Edwards. Go Johnny Go!!!!

It's about time..I've been complaining to ALL the programs about bias reporting on just TWO Democratic candidates..to date I've heard nothing back from anyone...but I did remind them all that he BEAT Clinton in Iowa & came in 3rd in N.H. in an eight member race.. I heard nothing about that win after the night of the vote...
I noticed that all the Republican candidates are getting free media attention.

Has anyone considered that big money controls the T.V. stations & doesn't want Edwards in office. I thought that New anchors would be above that kind of pressure. But maybe not.

I liked Edwards and I followed him the 2004 campaign. He has the same message four years ago execpt for Universal Health Care. And Chris Matthews picked that he always use the word: 'personally"

Maybe the media should give NO coverage of any candidates except for in the newspaper as they did before there was television. How did Presidents back in the 1800's early 1900's get their message out?

I agree with Senator Edwards though. The media, especially CNN are the ones who will decide who gets nominated. How can we as citizens know what each candidate's message is if the media outlets are only talking about 1 or 2 candidates when there are 5 or 6 more out there?

CNN needs to get their stuff together and give fair coverage to all candidates. I feel sorry for Kucinic because he's got a really good message that no one's hearing.

"facts are facts, and they are stubren things" , as the patriot Thomas Paine wrote. Edwards attacks mega corporations, ( the news media is one of them) so why would Time-Werner,Disney, Rupert Murdach want to give Edwards any press. Lets face it, why would CNN's parent company want to give any positive coverage to the Edwards campaign when it is pointing out the greed and avorus that governs Corporate America. I'm sure that if the Edwards campaign was to play nice, nice with corporations and there special intrestmoney like Clinton, and Obama, Edwards would get more news coverage.
Shame on the news media. You are doing to the political arena, exactly what you did to the early part of the Iraq war. Never question what is , and excepted what was spoon feed to you. Dont you ever wonder why this race has turned into gender, and race, and not issues that effect the poor and middle class?

So does John Edwards really think America would want a President who is so obviously in denial?

After he comes in a distant third in South Carolina the man should bow out gracefully with what dignity he still can, thank those who supported him (shoudn't take long), and encourage his followers to throw their support to Senator Obama.

I've been on the grounds battling for the DNC for nearly 20 years now. My points are centrist and realistic. The last time (45 years?) democrats took the White House, what are the general characteristics of the Prez that they all share>>Let see: LBJ, Carter, Clinton: Men, White, Southern-Now being a person of color, I dont claim that this should be the pattern, but does anyone think any other democratic candidate beside Edwards have a chance in general election. This is 2008 not 2108!! Get Real!!! We may feel great electing the first female or black candiate for the party but that contentment is crushed when you realized after the general election that Four more years is a long time-regression in terms of envirnoment, human/worker rights, ecnomic stagnation,etc. Remember Nader!! You may feel "liberally" good momentarily but the pains last and last!! The rabbles on both parties can be extreme and idiotic. Make the pragmatic choice-its not dieal i admit but at least it's a chance and this year is a very very rare chance. Please dont screw this up like other times!!!

I'll try again...

January 17, 2008 5:32 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is absolutely true. Edwards has not been getting equal coverage- the majority of the time the democratic race is referred to in terms of Clinton and Obama. It is fine time that something has been said because the media has been irresponsible and skewed in their coverage.

Edwards has been expressing this for some time… if this were happening to Clinton or Obama you can bet that they'd be saying the same thing. But Edwards is neither a white woman or an African-American man. Need I say more?

The media are the sheepherders and most people are sheep, just dying to be led…

Just like America regrets ever "voting" George W. Bush into office, Americans will come to regret it if they elect Hillary or Obama instead of Edwards.

John Edwards is the kind of person we need right now.

Wake up America. Don't make another mistake like you have the last two elections.

Does my old heart good to hear the Breck girl whine about how the media, which is bought, paid for, and fully owned by the Left, is giving the so-called "celebrity candidates" [GUFFAW] all the coverage. Whatsa matter, John-boy, having trouble controlling your own lapdogs? Hee, hee, hee...

John Edwards is right about the media and his poicies.

The Democratic primary has been a media circus and Hillary and Barack have behaved like clowns - Edwards has stayed above the fray.

John Edwards is right that big money and lobbys have screwed the working people of this country to the point where our children are being killed in an unjustified war and we can't afford health insurance.

By the way, if you look at the delegate count and the latest poll numbers out of Nevada, Edwards is breathing down the others bickering necks - he always gets a bounce in the polls before a primary because people start to pay attention and hear him speak.

John Edwards is right and he's right for the presidency of the United States! Go John Go!

Mirta,

I'm laughing because you called it: On CNN's homepage, the headline is "Edwards Lashes Out at Media."

I'm glad that CNN is at least covering this story. I hope it does some good.

Jennifer

Edwards – seriously, go home. Just give it up. You have just become the annoying younger brother on your big brother's or big sister's date. Let Obama and Hillary duke it out. Stop whining, be more dignified, and stop being angry. If you really want to continue, speak slowly and deliberately... about YOUR plans, and not bash others' plans – but please don't be an ordinary, angry white man. Behave.

John Edwards has been dealt a poor hand by the media. The amount of attention focussed on other candidates on the pretext this campaign was about race versus gender has threatened to deprive us of hearing more from John Edwards.
When one political pundit suggested it was already time for John Edwards to get out and tell his supporters to go vote for Obama then I guess the cat was out of the bag.

The support for Obama has been sustained more by media attention than anything he has said or done. Compared to John Edwards it is fair comment that he is a political lightweight with limited experience.

John Edwards should stay in this race. Far from his supporters giving their vote to Obama, we could equally argue the case that Obama's supporters should consider giving their vote to John Edwards. His debating skills are better, answers well thought out and he is less likely to divide the party, never mind the country.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. For all the rhetoric about "change", Edwards is the only one who is actually intent on, and capable of, bringing about real, fundamental, enduring change. And that scares the living hell out of the entrenched special interests, including the big media conglomerates. If Edwards was elected and succeeded in getting public funding of future campaigns, the media would lose billions of dollars and much of its election clout.

You people out there that cannot be honest and acknowled that John Edwards is not being treated fairly in the media are not being honest or fair.

There is no doubt that he is being ignored in the media. There is example after example and eveyrone out there that makes a comment to promote another candidate on this article is not willing to have a fair debate on the issues.

wah

(maybe he should sue them - that's what he's good at, isn't it)

Every one of these LIBERAL Democrats are going to ruin and bankrupt this country with "Universal Health care" so the less coverage the better.

Yeah I am suspicious about CNN, The Clinton's publicly start whinning about CNN not saying negative things about Obama, and to my surprise CNN folded to the Clinton's terms, very suspicious indeed. The truth will emerge soon, very soon.

Obama gets the media game, first he's like MLK, then JFK, then Bobby Kennedy and Today he is an admirer or Reagan. I think he's having an idenity crisis, but the love-in continues. John Edwards stands as Johns Edwards! The media will turn when the love fest ends.

True, the media does not elect the president gyates, but they do influence the voters. If candidates don't get their message out, no one will vote for them. This is a serious issue and definitely something to whine about.

At least he doesn't just get negative coverage and stupid questions like they do to Ron Paul. I'm a democrat voting for the only great candidate..Ron Paul. But if he doesn't get the republican nomination, I will be voting democrat. I urge all democrats to check him out...you might just like the guy.

John Edwards is a fine man and candidate and deserves as much attention as the other candidates. This country needs the BEST candidate to win - help us to learn about all of them!

Thank GOD John you have awaken, now get together with Obama, either of you can be Pres or Vice Pres, down your armour, you got it in you, Fight for your countrymen, do not let us down, and leave us to the Clintons or Republicans, Please!

As a RON PAUL supporter, you all have to understand how funny this really is! Get educated on the issues and think for yourself.

Aww, poor baby...the very fact that he gets this article means he's better off than any Libertarian. It must be awful when the media only covers two candidates for an office...oh wait, that happens every election. Yet, I still doubt Mr. Edwards is highly interested in electoral reforms to give fair treatment to so-called "minor" parties, so all I can say is, welcome to my world, buddy.

i'm disgusted by the media It is the media that decides in many ways who will eventually run for the presidency.

Look what they did to Howard Dean when he was running. Just because a guy
speaks from the throat and at that time had to throw out his voice.

There is no one running right now that I personally want to vote for. But I beleive
They should all have a fair and square chance. They should all be in the debates.

They should all have the same amount of time on News (If there really is such a thing) and commentaries.

This is the most important office in the country (At least for now; until we have
emptied our wallets to China and India. And instead of the chinese running around with their little red books; we'll be running around in the red).

Who is this edwards bum? You know it would be news if the people cared but sadly we already decided we don't want Edwards.

Get a clue.

I am a big fan of John Edwards he speaks the truth. He knows the working people. Who cares how much he spends on a hair cut?? That is only brought up to move the focus away from important issues. For example education and health care. But no one really wants the focus on important issues so the media creates unimportant issues the other candidates can jump on ... I am definately sure that the other candidates have spend money on unimportant things too. They have atleast spend more money on there hair cuts and clothes then I do mine. But again the issues I deem important are education and health care to just name a few .....

Edwards is only a progressive for expediency, there is nothing sincere about his leftist position. He thought this his best strategy this time around but he did not count on the popularity and MSM, particulary CNN, adoration of Obama. Thus his leftist progressivism, which would normally have played well in the anti-establishment (anti-Bush) climate, instead fell flat. Bad calculation and thank goodness for that, good riddance to Edwards; the most rotten insincere Democratic candidate ever. In the end his candidacy has only helped Obama and Hillary both, ironically. And his whining clearly signals his demise is imminent. GO HILLARY 2008!!

welcome to the world of Ron Paul buddy!

They should make a stink, because it will get them in the news but they should not be surprised.
The newspapers, networks, magazines, radio, etc all make money with "hot" news that drives subscriptions, clicks, whatever, not fair and balanced reporting.
If Brittany Spears were to run, it would be coverage of one candidate.
Its the voters obligation to seek information from varied sourced to make the most informed choice.

The conservative talk show hosts may be right on the mark about the media and controlling this election. Edwards is right that he has been over looked. He is way ahead of these other canidates in logic, leadership and planning, but the media wants only headlines. Keeping the public focused on Hillary and Obama and their stupid first grade antics makes good reading, but they would make lousy leaders.

As an Edwards supporter the lack of fair media coverage is extremely frustrating. After he got second in Iowa, the headlines said "Obama wins, Clinton gets 3rd". Barely any headlines mentioned Edwards. Its the same when they describe Nevada as a 2-person race when all 3 top candidates are statistically tied.

ed should quit the race and takes care of his wife. Family first, dude. what a kid he's

"Sites" several recent news headlines? Does CNN have an editor?

Edwards is 100% right. The media and corporate sponsors are dictating how these races go. They are doing a horrible job of covering all the canidates equally. Paul, Kucinich and others deserve to have their voices heard.

Apparently, Senator Edwards doesn't realize that the Republicans (via Grandpa Ronnie) did away with all fairness and equal time in the media...by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine.

Go John Go! JohnEdwards.com

I agree that Edwards hasn't been getting his fair share of coverage. Let's email Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann, for starters, and ask for more coverage of Edwards. The press has been very influential in the past but I think Americans are sick and tired of being told who the favorites are. That's for the voters to decide. They may not elect presidents, but the press has a lot of power to influence people. Look how they shut out Dennis Kucinich. Americans may have been led astray in the past by the press, who think that they are the only ones that can select the favorites, but not this time.

Glad to read the courts in Nevada sided with the culinary workers regarding their ability to vote in the caucus at their workplace. Nice try Hillary but your Karl Rove tactic backfired. Poor Bill Clinton needs to get a life. He had his day. It's time for change and that means Clinton is part of the old guard in Washington. You can't take money from the most powerful lobbyists Hillary and then tell the American people you feel their pain. That's an oxymoron.

I think an Obama/ Edwards ticket would be great for the country, democracy and the press.

Even as an Obama supporter, I agree. The media has so much influence over who gets their message out there, and for someone who has a consistently significant minority of the votes the media coverage acts like he doesn't exist.

Edwards is correct. However, one must consider the alternatives, of which the only outcome could be state control or mandate of the media in respect to it coverage of presidential candidates. In France, during the presidential elections all candidates got the EXACT SAME amount of air time as each other - down to the seconds. Additionally, all propaganda, posters, etc., was displayed equally and randomly in order to avoid someone always being in front of another in posters on a wall or in commercials. Essentially, the question is: Do we want this? In the end, the two top candidates received the top vote - Sarkozy and Segolene - so giving Mike Gravel and Tancredo as much air time as the top candidates may not really have any effect, as we might be the ones actually driving the amount of coverage alloted to each candidate...

I agree that the media is not fair ....The Gov. of New Mexico was not given much time during the debates...

The Edwards campaign is absolutely right, he hasn't received coverage in proportion to his viability as a candidate. Whether you support him or not, he deserves to be heard. I just heard him speak today in Los Angeles after donating $100 online this morning, and I can't imagine the Republican candidates and their corporate cronies fearing anyone more than John Edwards. Why just vote for someone who's the first this or that, when you can vote for a candidate that's not only the most principled and progressive on the issues, but also has the best chance of winning in november? Without question, that candidate is John Edwards. Finally, a Democratic candidate for president that you don't have to hold your nose for in the voting booth!

I agree with Edward's. I am so sick on turning the on the TV and seeing Obama and Clinton....Hmmm This is why I detest election year because the media picks and totally focuses on whomever and you don't get a chance to hear the other candidates and what they have to offer.

Mr. Edwards, as usual, is absolutely right. I hope CNN takes his words to heart! At a time when we desperately need honest, assertive, creative, & compassionate candidates for President we are being served up either the status quo or the just plain wacky. The press continues to go along with the Corporate Choice vs. the Right Wingnuts as if this is real democracy. We need proper coverage of the decent, rational candidates who take the welfare of the American people to heart. PLEASE give credit where it is due & cover the candidates as they merit.

Chris (third person before me) says it best. This country needs "some RESPECTABLE NEW ORGANIZATION which would give equal time to each candidate. All news organizations are businesses! If mixing church and
stateare questionable..what about State and Business?? Out of what
new mindset could this RESPECTABLE NEW ORGANIZATION come??
Chris..a lot of us need to work on this.I'm ENDORSING THIS NEW IDEA!!

It's about time Edwards spoke out about this! It's absurd to see the two-horse race the media is portraying – when Edwards is a viable candidate. Personally, I think it's because he's a white male – nothing newsworthy there. But Hillary and Obama provide 'better' stories. Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree with what Edwards is saying, but, golly gee, that's the way it is. It's called politics, the American Way. Clinton and Obama have the machines and the big money, so they get the attention. McCain and the Huckmeister got all of the press on the other side, until Romney took Michigan, so they had to give him some respect. Corporate America, the Unions, and the special interest groups will again dictate the winner of the election. While I support Ron Paul, (who is that you ask?), it's going to be (Ms.) President Clinton. She has the machine, huge amounts of money, the press, and will stop at nothing to acheive her goal. Yes indeed......that's what makes an American President.

Does anyone truly believe the Media to be fair?Just one more reason to try and influence the public.Way to go Media.You are well on the way to giving us another moronic,petty Tyrant.Wait and see how you feel when the Government controls your content.Far-fetched?So was five dollar a gallon milk,terrorists with nukes,and one fifth of America with NO Health care.Good job!! Like this has a chance for posting.Frre Press indeed!!

Amen to that!!!!!... it's about time an article was published discussing this... he's by far the democrats best choice to win the overall election!!!!

Yes, the coverage is not in Edwards favor and it's not right. Unfortunately coverage is never quite fair. He's right, the media should do a better job.

Shame on you, CNN

Boo hoo, Johnnie. Stop whining and crying and develop something worthy of garnering our attention.

If Edwards is on the ticket I am done with the Democrats...... Edwards had a 43% percent approval rating as a North Carolina Senator...... He was terrible for Kerry He can't deliver North Carolina to the Democrats My wife says she would kick his butt if she was sick and was having to go out on the campaign trail and look happy.

He is right. He came in 2nd then 3rd. No reason to count him out yet. Just look at the Nevada polls.

You are all sounding off about how you feel, but does anyone really believe that any of the editors or reporters of any media organization are going to read these comments and change their coverage? Vanity Fair did a story a few months back about the media coverage during the 2000 campaign. Read the article and you will see how reporters latch onto a story and beat it to death until something else comes along to distract them, and yes, they do play favorites They are not interested in serious news, just advertising and ratings. That is why you only get fluff and no serious reporting on anything of substance.

Media 101(Obverse): Whoever gets the coverage will win the election.
Media 101 (Reverse): Give equal coverage to all implies that the extreme margins (aka Ron Paul) gets the same coverage.

Probably makes for fun debates in the newsroom. Megalomaniac media moguls can influence the election just as the power brokers inside the political parties. Whining about it won't help. Moving towards more political parties could help by removing the focus on just the two.

Equality and equal treatment really is a myth unfortunately.

Senator Edwards YOU ARE CORRECT, but will you fight as hard for OTHER candidates NOT ANNOINTED by either the corporate media OR THE PENTAGON?

THE CORPORATE AND PENTAGON CONTROLLED MEDIA MAKES ME PUKE!

I am a staunch Obama supporter, but I really appreciate and admire John Edwards. I think he truly wants what is best for the American public (much unlike Hillary who is running solely to make history and give her husband a third term.) and I think the media should give him equal coverage.

To say the media doesn't elect the president is true, but it certainly gives the candidates a big push. You don't want to vote for someone if you don't know anything about them (unless you're tremendously irresponsible) and the only way to find out about the candidates from an outside perspective is through the media. The media "doesn't tell you what to think, but what to think about," right? Well, it's not really giving anyone an opportunity to think about John Edwards when it basically leaves him out.

Edwards should have stood with Dennis Kuchinic who was shut out by NBC by refusing to debate along with O Bama – now you are the one shut out – some solidarity is needed to fight the corporations – the king makers. There is little doubt that NBC/GE wants Hillary to win. She is the Corporation candidate.

Edwards is exactly right.

The US needs a come from nothing man in the white house not a celeberity that can raise money and owe everyone.Come on America do whats right not what is popular.

I like how they didn't tell us what the website is so we can see for ourselves.

The bottom line is that what Edwards is saying is true. He hardly gets coverage of recognition despite being the frontrunner for a long time in Iowa, strong in South Carolina early, and continuing to be strong in Nevada.

I would be slow to blame a plot to keep him out because he is speaking truth to powert though. I think this is, like the problems in Washington to a large extent, a product of ideological failures, not a product of powerful interests conspiring against painful truths.

Poor second time loser. The media should give him more time such as "Hey kids, don't grow up to be this loser. Or like one of the Clinton dirtbags."

I absolutely agree that the media has practically ignored john edwards, even tho he clearly speaks for a lot of people, as his showings thus far show. He is the only candidate, other than ron paul, who even remotely inspires me to get involved.

Edwards is just phony and boring. I don't want a president who spends more time on the mirror than his wife.

The media IGNORES him...But still he fights...I want this guy fighting for ME and MY FAMILY.

The media's rush to judgement (first female, first african american) with NO REGARD to most qualified.....UGH. God help us if we screw up another election.

I stand for John...because he stands with me. GO GET 'EM, JOHN EDWARDS PEOPLE!

More like the media has lashed John by not covering his candidacy. When the Republicans are covered, it's all of them. But when the Dems are, it's only you know who 2.
He is the SLEEPER! and will win. Elizabeth will make a fine First Lady.
It's time we take on the big corps who have personally drained MY bank account.
Wake up, America!

I always thought Edward was a good presidential candidate. I thought 2004 was lost because of John Kerry Flip Flopping. But I am tired of Bush dictatorship-ness, we just can not afford to put McCain in the office, he is George Bush' cousin. They both think alike, and this country can not afford that. The economy is bad, might head to depression if it continues the way it has. I Would love to see Either Edward-obama, or Hillary/Obama. But It looks like Obama/hillary or maybe Obama/Edwards. I am not racist folks, but I just dont want to see an african-american in the office. It reminds me so much of david dinkin ( the 90s mayor of NYC). If Obama is president, the African-American will go insan, thinking they own the country.

I am an ASIAN-AMERICAN not white. so please dont assume i am a white person hating on blacks i am not. I just dont want to see african-american in oval office. I have had many many issues with african-american, I cant stand them. GO JOHN EDWARDS!!!! even though I hate your accent, i will vote for you

I completely agree! Until the nomination by both parties is official, I expect equal and fair coverage of each candidate. It is the obligation of the media, to report in an unbiased and honest fashion, all events that are so critical to the people of his nation, so they in turn can make a decision that is based on accurate and complete information.
If I feel a network or paper is not giving me full coverage of all the candidates, I switch my listening, reading, (and purchasing) power to the media network and paper that shows the greater integrity and professionalism!

CNN=Clueless News Network. Since FoxNews becomes #1, CNN has been confused more than ever. CNN is obsessed with Obama instead of covering newsworthy news.

Why not change the name to ONN=Obama News Network?

At first, I thought the lack of equal coverage for Edwards was due to corporate media owners trying to sweep him under a rug. Maybe some truth is there, but now I think the politicos & media just assume that without a corporate-heavy war chest like Clinton's and Obama's, it's a foregone conclusion you cannot win. So they don't bother to give him equal coverage. Cynicism about the power of money is calling the shots.

In passing, the media occasionally refer to his lower funds. Those not paying closer attention ASSUME people didn't want to donate to his campaign. The truth is that Edwards is practicing what he preaches. He chose to abide by the campaign finance law and use only its funding rather than go after corporate funding. Even some of the reporters don't understand WHY his funding is lower.

WHAT'S FANTASTIC IS HOW FAR HE'S COME with his arms tied behind his back financially. I wish his staff would holler more about that.

Even today on CNN.com, one article ended by saying Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are tied in Nevada. Then the link for the next article said Clinton and Obama are head-to-head for Nevada–or words to that effect. Unbelievable. The media sees what it wants to see.

Well, the top three news stations (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) have been in love with the Clintons since the beginning. Obama recognized this and introduced his inspiring "Change" campaign (which many candidates, Reps. and Dems. alike, have since adopted). It attracted so much positive attention and support from VOTERS that the media had no choice but to cover it. Remember, the media wasn’t nearly as favorable toward Obama before he won Iowa, and they have switched to Clinton again after she won NH. And it's not like Edwards had no base! He was the Dem. VP candidate just last election, for Christ’s sake!! People know him. The simple fact is that he's just not as inspiring as Obama or as tough as Clinton. If he wants media coverage and can't pay for it like Clinton, then he better think of a way to motivate people. Like Obama. However, I do agree with many people on this post – an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a marvelous thing indeed!

It's ridiculous that Edwards, who has 18 delegates (only 6 less than Clinton), is getting close to no media coverage whereas Giuliani is getting so much and he has ZERO delegates to Romney's 48, and even Thompson who has 6.

The media is completely writing off Edwards (As well as Republican Ron Paul) before Super Tuesday and he's still a very viable candidate!

He is proven to beat any of the Republicans in a head-to-head match up by a greater majority than Clinton OR Obama!!!

The media wants it to be a two person race because they are owned by major corporations that are afraid of John Edwards' message.

My question to the media is: What are you so afraid of?

I agree. The media are doing a terrible job. All they can report on is the horserace and their method of reporting is "fixing" the race. We need investigative reporters who can thoughtfully examine the rhetoric of the candidates and compare them to their records, not promote a popularity contest.

Corporate run MSM hasn't covered John Edwards from the beginning because he wants corporate influence out of Washington. MSM is pushing Obama and Clinton because they know things would pretty much stay status quo. Corporate influence on our country has gone on long enough. They donate huge sums of money to candidates who then own them a favor. Obama and Clinton have taken huge donations from the pharmaceutical industries and others. Edwards hasn't taken any money from corporations and vows to keep their lobbying out of Washington and has said so from the first day. Obama has lately started saying basically the same thing about corporate influence, but gets credit for it as an original idea. John Edwards is not whining or blaming the media, he's stating a fact. Lack of coverage on his platform is a main reason he's coming in last in the polls.

And it's not just Edwards. MSNBC changed the rules for qualification to keep Kucinich out of the debates in Nevada. Ron Paul was kept out of the Republican debates . . . so if any of you out there aren't aware, MSM is telling you how to vote. This is a democracy. Any candidate has the right to be heard. Edwards is the most progressive of the democratic candidates and can do more for the middle class. Think about it, big insurance decides your regulations for you, big oil lobbies against alternative fuels. They're putting the big bucks in their pockets and taking it out of yours while enjoying their wonderful tax cuts. What if the people decided what our policies would be, what a unique idea!

Unfortunately, this is the truth. It is nothing new, though.

The American people stopped electing the President in this country a while ago. The media has been deciding who is in the Oval Office for decades.

I agree the media has acted like Clinton v. Obama is the only game in town. Typcial of the media mentality toward divisiveness gets viewers.

Why not Edwards/Obama? Give the big chair to the guy who has some experience and knows his way around DC. Let Obama be a part of the administration and see if we can't get a 16 year run out of these two.

I've been frustrated for weeks because of the lack of coverage. We're in a tough place as a nation and we need the best option out there – and it would help if people actually get to make up their minds about it.

I whole heartedly agree with Edwards. It sure makes it look like the right wing conservatives are correct in their analysis of the media. They predetermine who will run and who will win. NO wonder this country is in such a mess....The Bush Administration and the the liberal media. I hope Ron Paul and John Edwards both come out on top and the media steering the vote.

Edwards is just whining! Maybe if he ran his campaign competively he would be covered by the press...

Its interesting that an article principally about Edwards is tagged with Hillary and Obama. It is painfully obvious that the interests of the Mega corporations that own the major media outlets are perfectly in line with the interests that have funded Hillarys and Obamas "Rock Star" campaigns, are you entertained yet?

There is no doubt that the media has short-changed John Edwards in coverage. It isn't fair and it violates our rights to choose who we want for president. The media is not authorized to choose for us, so let's hear more about John Edwards, if it isn't already too late! He certainly deserves coverage since many of his ideas have been adopted by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. He is framing a lot of the debate. Maybe the media could at least give him credit for that!

stop your whining…the media does not elect the president…

you haven't a clue,,,, it's coverage that get's people elected,

I agree with Edwards, however, I think he has sided so much with Obama that it has hurt him from being singled out by the media and the public. After all, it's much bigger news that an African American is running for President than a white male.

There is no doubt that the media has short-changed John Edwards in coverage. It isn't fair and it violates our rights to choose who we want for president. The media is not authorized to choose for us, so let's hear more about John Edwards, if it isn't already too late! He certainly deserves coverage since many of his ideas have been adopted by the Clinton and Obama. He is framing a lot of the debate. Maybe the media could at least give him credit for that!

if you're losing, you're losing. Understand John is doing what every politician would do in his shoes..........get attention and claim he's not getting his fair share of the media camera. In the end, the system is working and John should and will come to the conclusion, he isn't the right guy at the right time. GET OUT OF THE RACE.

I agree with Senator Edwards. I appears that having three viable candidates in a race is more than the media can handle. It makes it hard to turn an election into a contest of personalities. The media may actually have to cover the candidates positions on issues. Wait a second this may take some work.

I COMPLETELY AGREE with John Edwards! He is a realist on every level of economy, diplomacy, strategic developments and integrity! He has my vote and many other MONTANAn's... CNN, FOX and other networks unfairly reduce the field for their own benefits. Not all woman believe Hillary is the "IT" girl and although Barack is smooth he is lacking something – (ability to win the Presidency) – . John is a good honest person and deserves as much media attention as the spoof stories networks continue to use to cloud AMERICA's RIGHT to CHOOSE!...

the main stream media has ignored Edwards and should be ashamed. He is by far the best choice for president, but all the media wants to talk about is Clinton and Obama, kinda like Britney and Anna Nicole dominated the news for so many months.,and the people got sick and tired of that. No big headlines when MSNBC wouldn't let every one still in the race debate just a blurb on the news. The media might not know Edwards is still around but how funny if he gets elected with out their help and I certainly do hope he does . EDWARDS IN 2008 GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!!

John Edwards is too HOTT for TV!

Poor Edwards, nobody pays attention...what are you, a two year old? Maybe the American voters would like to have coverage be fair and balanced, the way journalism is supposed to be. Thank you Jack and Lou !
The media is supposed to report the news, not create or spin it. I am an Edwards volunteer...the behavior of the national media towards him (and others) is proof positive (not that I needed any) that this country is in the hands of the few and that our democracy is and has been for a long time, in serious jeopardy. The media is a tool of the power brokers . The media spins, slants, endorses and relegates to the dump heap , as it is directed. No, I am not delusional or senile.
The snubb the media has given to candidate Senator Edwards is a badge of honor. as far I'm concerned. He talks about corporate greed and Washington being broken and not having lobbyists working in an Edwards White House, "come on," they say," that's angry stuff." Jonah Goldberg likened Sen. Edwards message as being "as poisonous as strontium 90" and said he would most definitely "be going down for a political "dirt nap"
Let me get this straight, Edwards talks straight talk and is advocating for the middle class, says Washington is not working right, won't take lobbyists money, oh, and lest I forget, he is the only candidate whose energy platform DOES NOT INCLUDE BUILDING MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. But he's angry sayeth the media. Well, I sayeth to the media, you collectively are violating the very principle of free speech in our constitution that keeps all of you wayward hacks, (w/ a few exceptions and you know who you are) employed.

lmao...welcome to Ron Paul's world John. It will be just another bought and paid for (s)election in '08.

Soon this parasite will be out of money

This is despicable for the media to be doing this to our democracy.

Fair press should be given to all candidates. The media is too infatuated with being part of history with these two candidates than actually doing their job. It is very pathetic.

Go John Edwards! The fight begins!

Edwards is absolutely correct about this. The news coverage of this campaign is subpar. In Iowa, all wanna-be insider Chris Matthews and others could do was hperventilate about Obama and Clinton. Edwards would be a fine leader and more people think so than these so-called experts thinks. The horrible Bush presidency has placed this country in a hole that only a man with his compassion, strength and vision can deliver it from.

I am hillary supporter. I am agree with him. I hope Edwards wins South Carolina since both Hillary and Obama has won.
Come on south carolina, give it to Edward just for fun:)

As a voter in this country I EXPECT the media to report the news equally on all candidates running for president. To hear the issues in debates, interviews or speeches regardless of how deep their pockets are or which special interest their campaign may be in bed with. I have expressed this with letters at the local level as well as the national level, not only this year, but 4 years ago as well. I am not surprised by some of the comments I have read regarding this ticker and am less surprised that those who have remarked in such a negative way are voting the way they are. The American people are becoming more and more like sheep, incapable of making a choice without the media’s direction and influence. Go to town the meetings and ask questions of the candidates, your peers your elders in order to be better informed. Check out websites and read about the issues and demand better from the media regarding equality for ALL Candidates. And don’t for goodness sake vote or caucus for the front runner because you don’t hear enough from someone you have a good feeling about or hear little about. The way to help the Edwards campaign is to vote for him, to caucus for him and help spread his messages from education to the war in Iraq.

I agree with the Edwards Campaign assesment of the media ignoring his clear appeal to a large population of this country. Shame on you for being suckers to the celebrity shallowness of the Obama/Clinton Politishow.

Edwards needs to stand in line. Ron Paul has been dealing with this for months.

can't wait till we get to rewrite FCC rules
and redress fair and balanced

Media is incredibly incredible
Pravda USA

There is no doubt that the media has short-changed John Edwards in coverage. Having once been a journalism student, I can't decide if it is because journalists aren't interested unless it is the biggest story or if it is because they all work for large corporations. Either way, it isn't fair and it violates our rights to choose who we want for president. The media is not authorized to choose for us, so let's hear more about John Edwards, if it isn't already too late! He certainly deserves as much coverage as Guliani who hasn't won anything but a franchise on 911.

I find it sad so many see the truth but no one can do anything about it, and they know it.

News needs to start being regulated, its too much power for a national/global control of information. Why can the news globally post someone's name and image of a crime before they're convicted? Guilty or not that person's life is now ruined.

News I think once was fact based but now every single last one of them from the anchors to the guests (guest of news?) are analysts. This means they are giving their *OPINIONS*.

I can only hope someone does something soon to stop corporate control of the US, and that includes the news.

Not an Edwards supporter but I think he's right, they'd rather show news about someone's bad day than balance the facts coming out.

Oh and Hillary is clearly a professional fake and I think its obvious. Enough of the 2 families ruling this country! Read the latest Time article online about Obama, Hillary, and experience.

-Z

Im a clinton supporter also and fair is fair he should get the same coverage !! because what is happening in Nevada with Obama using the media like he is doing and criticing edwards when he did the same thing in new hampsire

About time a candidate had the guts to go after the media's biased reporting on the campaign. Today on the Situation Room they covered Obama in glowing terms without reporting on Edwards or Clinton. I guess CNN has already found the democratic nominee. Edwards is a genuine candidate who still has a chance to win the nomination. If I lived in a state either Nevada or South Carolina I would vote for John Edwards because of the media disdain for him alone. Who the media dislikes is usually the candidate you want to back.

Ok you got your wish, people are ragging on you. Now dye your hair purple and punch out somebody and CNN will follow you around like puppy dogs. I'm not kidding,the media loves Jerry Springer type stuff.

Oh boo hoo. Now you now how third party candidates and Ron Paul feel.

Besides if you want to win you need Diebold in your pocket.

I find it rich that Edwards has chosen to campaign in the states that have early primaries rather than spend the same amount of time in each of the 50 states, but complains about the media not being fair to him in their coverage. As a voter in one of the later voting states, I certainly will never have access to the candidates the way that NH or Iowa voters do. I don't see Edwards changing his campaign strategy to be fair to me. The media has no obligation to change their strategy to be fair to him. Wat a whiner!

If Edwards does drop out, and Obama's thinking of picking Edwards as his VP, he should do it right now. They can campaign together against the Clintonistas through the rest of the primaries. Otherwise, it's Barack versus Slick and Hillary the rest of the way, and he will lose. Big time. Billary can be campaigning in two states at once, as could Obama and Edwards. Barack cannot beat the Clintonistas on his own.

I 110% agree with Mr. Edwards. I have been watching the coverage very closely and everyone from celebrity talk show hosts to national newscasters seem to cover only the candidates. It is very frustrating and I would love to see more coverage of this very worthy candidate.

Darn right, they are PUBLIC AIRWAYS,

EQUAL TIME FOR ALL CANDIDATES

Oh, boo hoo. You mean life is sometimes unfair? Tell it to all the OBGYN docs and hospitals you put out of business with your ambulance-chasing.

Edwards' campaign is right. It's right about that and about a lot of other things. The media should give him a chance to present his views. The people here who are railing against him likely feel threatened by him because they haven't had a chance or haven't taken the time to look at his proposals. John Edwards wants to put the voters' interests, YOUR INTERESTS, in office. He wants ONE AMERICA. That says it all...God Bless You All!!

THE MEDIA THINKS IF IT SPOON FEEDS US OBAMA /HILLARY, EDWARD SUPPORTS WILL VOTE FOR ONE OF THE TWO...WE ARE NOT BUYING IT, AND EDWARDS CAN'T BE BOUGHT LIKE THE OTHER TWO SELL OUTS!!

its amazing how edwards is crying poor on the media when his own camp treated the media like "the great unwashed" & the assumption that the working press may "bootleg" its content during his foray with bonnie raitt and jackson browne in Iowa. Media were asked to sign waivers regading any media content which featured Raitt & Jackson.At the same event the Edwards camp also provided a ridiculous and unworkable media space were laptops became exactly what they mean..by placing the media section in fold up theatre seats...totally unprofessional. Its amusing to see him crying poor now.. when in the past his campaign staff have been very ordinary in their treatment of the working press. To be fair the Obama camp, also has been dreadful in its treatment of certain sections of the media where a hint of arrogance is evident. mainstream media being giving preference over bloggers and self funded media..when candidates start whining about the media it usually means they have below par media relations..

I agree with Edwards. Many of the media are trying to "play God" in this election. Rather than reporting fairly, we see some of them spinning madly, as if they're Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews. If you want to pontificate and spew flawed surveys, get your own show. Where's the "journalism" in marginalizing an honest and viable candidate?

Since my comments speak to the media (what the article was about), let's hope my comment did not get censored and therefore not posted "due to the volume of comments they receive".

The media attempts to control the fate of the Presidential election. They make it into a popularity contest, an American Idol kind of show. They force out folks like Biden and Dodd, never giving them any airtime, never giving them an opportunity in the debates. That's why they up and left. What (who) makes them less Presidential than Clinton, Obama, or Edwards? The media!

Voters need to go to each candidates website, look at how they voted (including when they did not show up to vote), and determine for themselves who they feel should be the next President of the United States.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT election. Our nation cannot be at the mercy of another Republican president...one who will continue to support and prolong the war in Iraq and continue to make the rich, richer.

Don’t allow the media to control the destiny of the elections. It’s just a sideshow, another way to suck you into the drama and increase their ratings. Make an educated decision and vote with your heart. Your life depends on it!

About time, John! You're an amazing candidate, and could be the best president we've had since FDR – but in every MSM story, you get less time and attention than the two novelty candidates.

Keep pushing!

Well maybe if he would of spoke up when the media was treating other candidates unfair. Like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Kucinich. I'm tired of seeing these politicians stay quiet when someone gets silenced but cry about it when it's their turn.

He is absolutely correct. While I am not sure I would even vote for Edwards in the presidential election, the media has definitely used the black man vs. white woman subject to its advantage in an attempt to increase readership and ratings. Whether you like him or hate him, John Edwards has been the most reliable and consistent democratic candidate throughout the entire race, yet he has received a fraction of the coverage. The media's job and this includes you CNN, is to report on the issues and our choices; to properly inform the public of what is going on among all fronts. The media has failed the American people in this regard and it better get on the ball and start acting like an adult. The news media is not the entertainment media; get that through your ratings heads. The news is one of the primary, if not the primary vehicle that most American's use to get the majority of the information they use to make the choice that best suits them. This is a serious issue, one that will effect our entire country and the world over the next 4-5 years. Get all on the ball, would ya. You are failing us.

It's true! The News media it presenting very biased coverage of the presidential campaigns. It certainly looks like certain "powers behind that be" are trying to "set up" their candidate. The news media should be supporting a free democracy, but instead it is a manipulative tool by certain entities behind the scenes.

stop your whining...the media does not elect the president...

Edwards is boring... sorry but it's true... with Obama you have the black angle... clinton... the female.. both would be HISTORIC firsts.... edwards is just another anglo-saxon (been there done that).... can you blame the media?

Man, is it just me is John Edward about the most handsome dandy I've ever seen?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

I agree with the complaints from the Edwards camp. Reality is that the media is following what they consider to be the bigger stories. By doing so they are thus steering the election. A proper and balanced media group would give equal time to each candidate regardless of poll popularity or ranking.

It would be nice if there was some respectable new organization that would lead the way in this regard.

Mind you, the above statement is not an endorsement of Edwards but simple agreement with his statement.

I do feel that the media does focus on just the leaders in a campaign. With the power of the media they should be responsible in giving the public the whole story.

We may overlook our best choices because the media doesn't give equal time to all.

the utter lack of fairness or substance in the media coverage and many of the voters (god help)'s comments as plainly demonstrated right here is more than depressing but not surprising. this was exactly how this nation of uninspired public and shameless elites put bush/cheney in the WH twice and invaded Iraq for no good reason whatsoever. we deserve to go down the tube.

CNN webpage's own graphics suggest Edwards is correct: Obama and Cliinton are listed as Hot Topics.

Oh gee

The Media is blacking out a candidate ? Noooo ! You don't say ? Are you suggesting the corporate owned media is influencing public opinion ?

I'll go ask Ron Paul what his thoughts may be. You know, the guy who beat Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in Michigan ? The guy who destroyed Thompson in New Hampshire and polled just 3% under Huckabee ? The guy who polled 3 % under John McCain ?

A media blackout ? PLeeeaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Let's try this for the THIRD TIME. Interesting how my previous two comments disappeared into thin air...Hmmm...Wonder why.

John Edwards has been getting screwed by corporations that don't want that much integrity and honesty in the oval office.

CNN is a corporation. See the connection? I knew you would.

America, WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP. John Edwards is the most perfect candidate America could ever hope to have. GO JOHN GO!!!

CNN, quit with the RUSH TO JUDGEMENT and let us choose our own president.

Im a Hillary Supporter, but I totally agree with Edwards. All the top media broadcast stations have favored OBAMA and HILLARY (in that order). Very bias media!!! Its almost like they have to favor a black candidate.

It is true and look piece for piece regarding John Edwards. His campaign talked about the common person and yet, color and gender ruled and rule the day. We have never heard about Obama funding liquid coal, we have never heard about Obama playing poker with the lobbyist and his wtered down health care plan in Ill. We didn't see him playing basketball at an event that was overflowing, on the news. WHy corporate America has owns the media.

Instead we get Hillary crying at the last moment once again, manipulating the media.
Check the facts, the Washington Post gives Edwards a blog. The New York Times even less. When O'Reilly criticizes homeless Veterans what do we see NOTHING.

The media wanted to do what sells. Another media mogul now has ads for Obama on their webpage and still another does in his words. And just shows him speaking.
This system is RIGGGGED, and unfortunately Edwards' team is ineffectivein dealing with this. Do the research I did.

The only people who can rightly stand up for the Edwards campaign on this issue is the Edwards campaign and it's about time they do. Month after month, the media has marginalized the Edwards campaign. I would guess that this may have something to do with the ownership of the current US media outlets and Edwards position on corporate power in the US. That, campaign funding of the other two major candidates and the preferred, simplistic appraoch to presenting information to the American public. A horse race with two riders is so much easier to cover and present than one with three.

By the way, CNN, "On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only ..." should be "with a Web site that cites..." as in citation.

Maybe John should represent himself and all the other candidates that the media has intentionally ignored in order to manipulate the election process in a class action suit – that would be GRAND! Time to take down American Media for it's CORRUPTION!

The only people who can rightly stand up for the Edwards campaign on this issue is the Edwards campaign and it's about time they do. Month after month, the media has marginalized the Edwards campaign. I would guess that this may have something to do with the ownership of the current US media outlets and Edwards position on corporate poser in the US. That, campaign funding of the other two major candidates and the preferred, simplistic appraoch to presenting information to the American public. A horse race with two riders is so much easier to cover and present than one with three.

By the way, CNN, "On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only ..." should be "with a Web site that cites..." as in citation.

EDWARDS DOESN'T GET THE MEDIA ATTENTION BECAUSE HE CAN'T BE BOUGHT...HIS CAMPAIGN IS LARGLY FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT LOBISTS AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS LIKE OBAMA ADMITTED TO (RATHER ANGRILY) IN THE SECOND DEBATE..HE IS THE FIRST PERSON THAT TALKED ABOUT "CHANGE" (WHICH GOT A STANDING OVATION AT THE VERY FIRST DEBATE) THAT HILLARY AND OBAMA ARE NOW RUNNING THIER CAMPAIGNS ON...SEAMS TO ME EDWARDS ISN'T WAISTING THE MONEY HE GETS FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BY "BUYING" A SPOT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION...UNLIKE "OTHERS" WHOSE PETTY FUEDS ARE ALWAYS IN THE NEWS. ..

I'm so glad Edwards is finally speaking up. He brings the most change of all the candidates. No one else is willing to taking on the credit card companies, the oil companies, & financial giants. Our capitalism is constructioned for We the people, not the barons who've our moved off shore.

Republican ticket also is getting uneven coverage.

Hey you want your vote to be bought out by the glitz and glamour of stupidity go ahead!

You should be voting for what you really believe in the first round then pick the lesser of 2 evils.

Polls suck! CNN and FOX don't care! ( not unless it is advertising dollars)

I hold my ground even if the coverage sucks! My TV is off!

John's camp and everyone else that has watched how the media has manipulated the election process should file a complaint with the FCC!

I'm a Obama supporter...and John Edwards is absolutely correct. He hasn't gotten even remotely the coverage he deserves. Hopefully, that's about to change.

CNN is the worst.

Edwards doesn't get as much coverage because he doesn't make comments which are upsetting. Hillary and Obama have had a lot of extra media coverage recently, not about the issues, but about the conflict over who was playing the race card. If Edwards was meaner, then maybe he'd make more headlines. I don't want him to be negative just to get attention, but it seems that is one way Hillary and Obama have moved ahead.

I absolutely agree. All the media potrays is Hillary ( a female ) and Obama ( an African American). I think it is unfair. The American people should stand up against the media. The candidates talk about change, they should start with the media. Take a lesson from International News Centers, they conduct themselves much differently. They show it all, they hide no details.
The media should allocate the same amount of time for each candidate. They are not doing justice to the American people with this election. Its a shame.
I feel bad for some of the candidates, the news media these days is more like US Weekly and In Touch magazines.
All the networks are guilty as well!
Signed,
An Independent Voter who can not look to the media for honesty

Gravel, Kucinich, and the other "second tier" candidates would laugh at those comments. The issue isn't that Edwards isn't getting the time, it's that the media decided from day one who is a tier one candidate and who is on the second tier. Compared to guys like Biden and Dodd, Edwards has gotten a treasure trove of free publicity from CNN and Murdoch.

Where were Edwards' complaints about the media when MSNBC/GE shut out Dennis Kucinich from the recent debate in Nevada? Or when ABC/Disney shut Kucinich out of the final debate in New Hampshire? Or when The Des Moines Register shut Kucinich out of the final debate in Iowa? Edwards was completely silent in each of these cases where the media was entirely unfair to a legitimate candidate who deserves airtime for his views.

So while I agree 100% with Edwards on this issue, I can't help but think this is a purely self-serving campaign. If he really cared about the influence of corporate media on our democracy, the dissolution of our free press, etc., then he would have spoken out on these critical issues long before they became a political problem for his campaign.

Now you know how Ron Paul supporters feel. Compared to him, Edwards has been on the front page every day. That is not to say that Edwards isn't completely justified in his beef.

I think it is atrocious how the media are getting to control the thought process of the country. If you are not named in the media, you don't get votes. Period.

Moreover, the media coverage is pathetic. No one discusses actual issues.

I am right on board with you. I think as long as we have an FCC and a government power issuing licenses to only a few major media outlets, we need to return to the fair coverage law where all candidates had to get equal air time. What we have now is awful.

Mr. Edwards, I am very sorry for you. I think you deserve better.

People seem to think that all you have to do is do something to get the coverage. Not true. The media has decided who it wants to win and no one else gets a chance. For goodness sake, this race has barely begun. These early states have lost tons of delegates for having the race so early and these early races mean next to nothing.

No one is winning anything. So I call shenanigans on the mainstream media.

Time to ignore it completely. Perhaps when ratings go through the floor they will get the idea we don't like being propagandized.

Good luck sir.

Yours truly,
A Ron Paul supporter.

Edwards doesn't get talked about enough. I wish someone would ask Sen. Clinton while she was first lady, did the thought of (at that time) if she was president the way things were done then....she would so them different??

I do agree with John Edwards about the media hardly mentioning him. I also feel that the media always try to make Hillary Clinton look bad. It seems they have some kind of delight in doing it. It is indeed true that the comments for Barack Obama are always presented in a positive way by the media.

Way to go Edwards, you deserve as much or more attention than Obama or Hillary. Shame on the media who are only interested in scandals, gossips or chasing celebrities (Brittney?). There are serious issues facing this great nation and media is interested in racial spat between Obama and Clinton. What a shame and third rail has been derailed and out of whack with the mainstream America. The war, economy, middle class, health care are very serious issues affecting not only Americans but the entire world when it comes to weak dollar, high gasoline prices etc. Edwards has repeatedly brought up important issues in debates and stump speeches but get sidelined in this celebrity obcessed media. You have my support Edwards and got my son to agree with you also. You will be the next President, Edwards.

People who type in all CAPS should expect to be ignored.

Barbara...Hillary worked for Goldwater when she was still a teenager and became a democrat after being 'forced' by her school to take an opposing view in a debate and then began to learn how much she appreciated the democrats' view...I think that's pretty honourable.....

Let's face it, the media is owned and controlled by rich Republicans whose worst nightmare would be John Edwards in the White House. This goes double for the multi-national corporations who have had everything thier way for the last seven years.

Edwatds has been systematically ignored by the medi and is right to complain. And as far as people supporting Clinton and Barak they are in la-la-land. Rove has said Obana and Clinton are beatable and given tips on how to do it. The Swift Boats will come out and attack, attack, attack. A recent CNN poll showed Edwards was the only candidate capable of beating ALL the Republicans, No differnce between Clinton and Obama but gender and race. Both Corporae Dems who have sold their souls to special interests. Some people don't look at issues; they will just vote on gender and race.

The media don't cover Edwards because they are owned by the same big corporations that are pouring money to Obama and Hillary, one way to fix the outcome of the elections is with access to the media. Edwards is not their favorite guy since he is denouncing the corporate greed, the lobbyists and machine, the same powers that he is threaten and they are squeezing his campaign. CNN, MSNC, and other cable outlets only mention Obama and Clinton. We all know that!

ABSOLUTELY TRUE & THE MEDIA KNOWS IT! THEY HAVE BEEN MANIPULATING THE ELECTION PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING. EXPERIENCED CANDIDATES LIKE CHRIS DODD AND JOE BIDEN DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA!

Every time you ask Edwards his option he goes off on Hillary.

Edwards tells what you're going to do and lay off Hillary. Also why haven't you laid into Obama. Obama is a head of you, that's extreamly sad

Hillary all the way.

Absolutely. We have been wondering when watching the debates and the follow up why Edwards is so discounted? His poll numbers are always good and he gets enough support to be discussed much more thouroughly. Yet the media will absolutely beat to death the supposed race issue between Hillary and Obama when both quotes were constantly taken and repeated out of context. This is too important to be played as yellow journalism

BoooooHoooo....poor Johnny Edwards, I feel so bad for him. He is a has-been. He lost me forever when John Kerry picked him as his running mate.

Signed,
Lifelong Mass Dem

Edwards gets more attention than me, where do I file a lawsuit?

Edwards should give great speeches, and have many people like him and then the media will follow. Hillary was getting everything, but Obama did his home work and stepped up his game.

Edwards do your job and stop blaming the media like the Clintons are doing when Obama is beating them.

Good for the Edwards campaign. It's about time the media started covering news instead of what they consider glitz. Yes, we have great candidates and I'm proud of the fact we have diversity on the Democrat side, but Edwards is experienced, hard working just like his colleagues and deserves better....especially after that questionable move by Kerry to endorse Obama in the state where Edwards was born and may have a better chance getting more votes. Journalist need to be a little less lazy and report the news as it happens...not just the sensational side.

Yes, I totally agree. The media is not doing their job, they leave out a lot of stuff they should be covering, especially one of the most important candidates that has
the most potential to really make a difference, John Edwards. I also have to do my own research at times because they just don't talk much about him. I really hope this opens their eyes.

Edwards should get even coverage in the news media. I am not currently supporting him as I do not think he can win the Democratic Primary and I do not agree with him on some key issues, but I do think his voice should be equally heard.

I COMPLETELY agree – in fact I've been saying that to everyone around me for months. I think Edwards was a very viable candidate until all the press coverage changed to focus on only Obama and Hillary – and I think his numbers would be much more competetive if he received even a fraction of the coverage that they have. I am not necessarily going to vote for Edwards – I am still deciding between him and Obama – but I don't think that it is fair or right that the MEDIA (CNN definitely included, unfortunately) are influencing the elections in this way by the incredibly uneven coverage. I understand not giving equal time to a Kucinich or Gravel, but I think Edwards deserves to be treated the same as the other frontrunners.

I have always gone to CNN.com for my news....but this political season it seems as though there's a lot of bashing at all the candidates except Obama....coincidence?....i think not....GO HILLARY!!!!

I'd have to agree with him. All the articles about Democratic candidates that I see, especially here on CNN, are either about Clinton or Obama – and I'd have to say I get the impression most are about Clinton. If I didn't know better, I'd think nobody else was running. I don't think Edwards got anything close to equal coverage.

Not only is Edwards right, but so is Clinton. The media's unwillingness to cover Edwards–as the most progressive candidate in the race is disgusting. But so is the media's lack of reporting on the centrist proposals of Obama. Can anyone say nuclear power? How about drafting legislation that would have given the coal industry billions? How about supporting the 2005 energy bill? All things done by Obama, but not really talked about by the media. If you want a real progressive vote Edwards. If you want more centrist calculations support Clinton or Obama.

Americans don't like Edwards because he's so angry!

Also Hillary's much better in every way!!!

Go Hillary!

John Edwards is right, but he is lucky that he has not yet been relegated to to the 'lower tier' of candidates by the media, including CNN.com . Just look at the politics section on cnn.com and you can see where they put Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. They are still running for president yet their names appear right in the middle of the candidates that have dropped out.

Obviously, this is a not-so subtle message to readers who might be considering voting for those who are not CNN/Time Warner's candidates.

Shame on you!

I have said the same thing to myself after reading numerous stories about the Democratic candidates–where is the story on Edwards. Wish the press would even out its coverage of ALL the candidates!

BY THE WAY, CLINTON CAMPAIGN RESEARCHED OBAMA'S BACKGROUND
BACK TO HIS EARLY CHILDHOOD DAYS, WHY IS IT THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT CLINTON'S BACKGROUND, EARLY SCHOOL DAYS(1963). SHE WORKED FOR A REPUBLICAN (GOLDWATER )FOR PRESIDENT WHO WAS DEFINITELY AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND THE VERY PRINCIPLES THAT DR. KING PREACHED. SHE IS A FAKE .. I KNOW, BECAUSE, I WAS INVOLED WITH SIT-IN DEMONSTRATIONS. WHEN DID SHE BECOME A DEMOCRATE? AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, JOHNSON IS BEING USED...BUT THEN, "BIRDS OF A FEATHER, FLOCK TOGETHER" AND YOU CAN JUDGE A PERSON BY THE COMPANY HE/SHE KEEPS. ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT- I REALLY DON'T KNOW MANY BLACK PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT
MIXED (WHITE/INDIAN) . MY GRANDFATHER (WHITE) MY FATHER (BLACK)
I HAVE A AUNT (RED HAIR/BLUE EYES) I AM ALL MIXED UP. A GREAT-GREAT
GRANDMOTHER (100% INDIAN) I CHANGE COLORS WITH THE WEATHER (SMILE), I AM BLACK (DARK BROWN) AND I LOVE IT. BY THE WAY, mY GRANDFATHER IS THE EXACT IMAGE OF THE PRESIDENT CANDIDATE (REPUBLICAN THOMPSON) HE WAS 105 YEARS OLD WHEN HE DIED 1964. SO AMERICA, PLEASE, PLEASE, "UNITED WE STAND/DIVIDED WE FALL"

Edwards' Communications Director is right. He doesn't get mentioned enough. I even saw a news report on Boston's channel 7 news that said that he had come in third in the first two contests. When the media even bothers to mention him, it just lies!

The reason Edwards is played as second tier is that he is fighting a union fight. Now, I support unions and I like Edwards but there are a lot of voters that he leaves out while he fights for the underdog. The position has left him behind the other candidates in tactics and raising funds. I am a Obama supporter but I am happy to back Edwards as he is my second choice. Part of his problem is that crusades which do not unite the entire electorate can only get one so far. Obama understands that everyone must be brought into the process and that we need to agree that we will disagree but everyone should have a hearing. Clinton is just insane when it comes to what she wants and when she wants it. Edwards needs to stretch himself if he wants to be considered, but after SC he will most likely be out of the race. Again, I really respect him but every candidate/person has their character flaws, so to speak.

I agree with Edwards, it is mainly Clinton Hill and Bill, Bill and Hill, what is going on?

I know most media likes the BILLLYHILLY but right now there are three candidates not ONE.

in fact there was too much on Bill_ alone.

I will vote for Obama but Edwards is still a candidate and he deserves equal attention, however, CNN tends to love the HILLBILLYS and focus on very narrow topics for the other candidates.

Has CNN ever asked, what has HILLYBILLY done in her years in the senate and how many years has she served? (she claims 35)...mmm

Evangelina

He and Kucinich have been saying the same thing all along and rightfully so. BFSurprise–the two candidates with the biggest corporate coffers get the most media coverage–as if they're our only choices. H & O are the LEAST qualified candidates on the shrinking Democratic roster no matter how appealing they may be for other reasons. It's not about experience, change, qualifications, honesty, or what they really stand for; it's about who the media is gonna ram down your throat and who the megacorps (that own everything from the media to the factory that makes your dogfood) are gonna own and control in office. This BS is another signpost on the road to plutocracy. If you see it as anything else you're part of the problem.

Clinton/Edwards... Clinton/Obama... Clinton/Bayh... It doesn't matter. She's gonna win the nom, and she's gonna win the election. Period.

GO HILLARY!

Whoever said Cheney beat Edwards iin the 2004 debate s a doofus. Edwards was the clear choice from teh start. Obama would make a good vice. youshould watch the news for entertainment and READ the news if you want to learn. I mean come on they dont even talk about the fact that the dow is about to hit 12000. Edwards is the only one who knows whats going on.

Not my favorite candidate, but I would vote for him if he's the Democratic nominee. I will probably vote for any democrat over any

However, I agree that the media has had too much Clinton and Obama. Unfortunately, it is more negative to both candidates (if it bleeds, it leads...)

But Edwards is right. Coverage is not balanced in any manner.

That may end up being to his advantage.

Funny how Edwards had no use for Fox News until the focus group after the debate showed that he won the debate..and guess who "sponsored" the focus group? Fox News

Lame compaint. Say something interesting and maybe people will pay attention.

I bet Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes would be happy to give Edwards some airtime if he wasn't afraid to gone on with them:)

If you really want to reduce lobbyist influence, pass the FairTax!

How about the ACLU and other organizations/pressure groups getting involved in this and changing the law, if necessary, to ensure that this country really functions as a democracy during its most important process? Look what this country has suffered as a result of the last 7 years of destruction of the most fundamental principles this country was founded upon. Edwards is not only right, it is an incredibly serious matter that the media should be held accountable for. It is in the public interest to be able to learn equally about ALL of the candidates, not just the top two or three. MSNBC should be heavily fined, at the very least, for purposely excluding Kucinich recently from a debate. All media outlets should be held accountable and fined and/or even lose their license to operate, if necessary – whatever it takes, to get democracy and honesty into the voting process.

Every candidate should be entitled to a fair pre-election forum ground regardless of race or gender.

Jenna-Hillary Clinton for President

Go John! You did beat Mrs. Clinton in Iowa. And your debate performances all along have been far superior to her wonky, strident, self-promoting blather. Continue to speak truth to power!

thats funny ummmmm, now you know an itsy bit how Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinish and others must feel. Only they have supporters REAL ones!

Hi ,
I just heard Bob Johnson's appology to Barack Obama. It was more like a campaign event for Hillary. Telling the black voters outright, that she has more experience than her opponent. It should have just been an apology and not a campaign announcement
Did Bob Johnson even know that the president's term is 4 YEARS not 8 as he said.
Is Hillary already being elected for 8 years. Let's set the record straight. Barack has a LOT more experience than Hill ever had. And he is honest. I would encourage anyone running for a high office to be TRUTHFUL about their past. Can you imagine, what she would have done, if she dug that up herself. No, dirty politics are here to stay on her part- not BARACK's. Hope he can steer clear of it.

I more than agree with the Edwards campaign. He truly has been slighted by the media and treated very poorly. Being the All-American I believe him to be, it's essential that he rebuke the media for its lack of coverage to his campaign. Sen. Edwards has the intelligence, experience, and ability to lead this country forward toward the change for which all of us are hungry. In his heart, he truly believes that he can make a difference, and I am in agreement! He would give us an opportunity to have the U.S. regain its image that has been lost during the digusting Bush years! I certainly hope his attack on the media has a positive result for his campaign.

This is so obviously true that it defies comprehension. In report after report, we get Hillary and Obama. Their policies are almost identical on every important issue. Edwards has different stances on Iraq, security, the economy, outsourcing, globalization, immigration, etc. Both Obama and Clinton want to grant blanket amnesty tyo all illegal immigrants. Both are pro free trade and "globalization", the very policies that have led us into the current economic disaster. Both are for keep a "presence" in Iraq. Both want government assisted private healtk insurance as opposed to genuine universal coverage. Edwards has views opposite both Clinton and Obama on every single one of those issues. He also, alone amoungst all canbdidates, has positions on those issues that happen to agree with the vast majority of the voting public. So, not only does Edwards have a point, we all have been sold a bill of goods by the media

Edwards is absolutely right.

The news media have focused mainly on Clinton because she's a woman and Obama because he's "black", even though, because he's half-white, you could just as accurately say he's white. He's no dummy though and is playing the black thing to the hilt.

Accentuating these novelty candidates as if they were the only viable candidates has the effect of a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more the public hears about them, the more the public thinks they must be important.

Edwards has the best stance on most issues, especially the health care/insurance crisis in this country.

Edwards has a point to some degree...but when you have an African-American who is a great orator and a woman who has true substance and ability and both have a very real prospect of winning the nomination and the presidency then its obvious that Edwards is going to get knocked out because in all fairness he really isn't that remarkable. He doesn't excite us!!

On another note... this has nothing to do with the actual content of the blog but whatever happened with the ability to write and spell basic English "the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines "
SITES several headlines....what about cites??? Surely CNN should lead by example?

The media business is just that....a business. Candidates is getting the attention they deserve and the country wants. To conclude a distant 2nd place finish and a more distant 3rd place makes you a "front runner" is delusional. Kucinich has a second place finish….is he a front runner, too?.

It is a fact... Edwards is not wanted because he is for t American people and not Big Business people aka The Money People" If John adds the following to his campaign he is a sure winner!

"I will bring industry home to the US; then companies can provide insurance and medical coverage to middle class Americans. People can go back to work , pay for their homes they are losing because their jobs are being sent overseas. Then with jobs to support their families, the crime rate will decrease as the need to commit crimes to feed the families diminishes."

Then support a slogan that says, " Buy a foreign car; put an American out of work! "
People need to demand cars made in the US that are environmentally friendly! Save the car manufactures struggling to maintain American status!

Corporate Media will not and quite possibly cannot focaus on John Edwards because their Corporate bosses would spank them if they did.
He is the ONLY ONE of the Democratic Candidates who isn't beholden to BIG MONEY CORPORATIONS and because of that he can't be trusted to do their bidding if in the White House .
And being the BEST LOOKING candidate if they gave him much air time everyone would pay attention to him.

Maybe John should have spoken out when the "media" first started ignoring Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Gravel. And then he should have spoken out when they started eliminating all of them from the debates one by one til most of them dropped out. It's too late to start crying about media bias now that he's the one on the losing side. Maybe Kucinich can't win this one, but he still has a right to be heard just as much as the rest of them. I think he has MORE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BECAUSE HE'S THE ONLY ONE NOT FOLLOWING BUSH'S LEAD IN CONTINUING A WAR 75 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WANT ENDED AND THE ONLY ONE TRYING TO HOLD BUSH/CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR LIES AND COVER UPS OVER THE YEARS THEY'VE BEEN IN OFFICE. None of the others, including John Edwards even CARES about the corruption in the White House or has the guts to talk about it if they DO CARE. No sympathy HERE.

Poor John, he had his presidential aspirations upset in 2004 when his plan was to make it a one-on-one with Kerry or Dean or whoever, and Wes Clark upset those well-laid plans. But did John complain when after finishing 2nd in Iowa and then not being able to turn that into anything better than 4th in NH and the media continued to give almost all their coverage to Kerry and Edwards. Or did he complain after the following Tuesday when he finished 1st in SC, but lost to Wes Clark in 4 of the other 6 contests that day and still continued to be covered as if there were only 2 candidates – Kerry and Edwards. I think not.

Of course, it's poor John again in 2008. Once again his plan was for this to be a one-on-one with Hillary Clinton, but then Barack Obama threw his hat in the ring and upset both his and Clinton's well-laid plans.

John Edwards is just not doing what he thought he would be able to do in 2008, and he's whining about it, and he should just admit that he read the electorate wrong in 2004, that he read it wrong again in 2005 and 2006 as he got ready to roll out his next presidential campaign, which was never really abandoned, and that he continued to read it wrong again in 2008 – and the angry white Southern male candidate just wasn't what the voters wanted this year.

Tee, are you going to vote for hillary simply because that's what your friends are doing? how absurd. i can't believe anyone wants another clinton in the whitehouse.

we might as well demand another g w bush presidency

The media has chosen their candidates, and they have decided to keep Edwards out. But the PEOPLE, especially the working (middle) class are supporting Edwards. Get ready for an Edwards win in Nevada! Pledge your support on Friday the 18th and help the campaign earn $7million in one day! Tell your friends.

I'm not sure which is more troubling - the media's ignoring the campaign of John Edwards or the editors of CNN Ticker not being able to spell the word "cites" correctly in this "authoritative and credible" item.

Edwards is exactly right on this. Iowa was a three way race for months before and voted that way. The press was either too lazy or... to simply do their job!

The presses job is to report the news, not make or shape the news.

Mr. Edwards is right!

I am an Obama supporter first, and Edwards second. Both are wonderful and would make a good team!

I would rather see them include all the canidates because it give us a better message and choice!

Definitely agree with what Edwards is saying.

I understand, but he's just not as interesting as the others! At least not when you're a white male against a. a woman, or b. a black man.

I agree with Senator Edwards. Particularly with regard to Tim Russert who seemed to intentionally direct his questions only to Senators Obama and Clinton in the Nevada debate Why? It was blantant to me that Mr. Russert seemed to be slighting Senator Edwards. I have not decided if I will vote for Senator Edwards or Obama but I'm convinced that the special-interest financed campaign of Senator Clinton will not be in the best interests of this country. We've had enough of the Clintons – even though I believe Bill Clinton was a good president for this country. My concerns seemed to be most discussed by Senator Edwards and I'd like to see this aspect discussed more fully. I am firmly of the belief that the special interest control (both in the Democratic and Republican Parties) is the primary cause for the financial schemes, scams, etc. going back to the S & L Crisis of the 1980's to the present sub-prime meltdown, credit liquidity problems, and the upcoming new bad news in the financial sector regarding SWAPS and credit card bundling & securitization. Please don't allow the talking-head celebrities like Tim Russert manipulate the outcome of this critical upcoming election.

I agree with Edwards. I am voting for Obama, but the media needs to show Sen. Edwards some love too. Give the man the opportunity to be heard. I would vote for him before the "Clinton Dynasty".

Hey, CNN et al!! What are you afraid of, somebody CHALLENGING YOU??

The media "newsreaders" can screw themselves. They are robots, just doing what their masters tell them what to do....

Time for EQUAL TIME to be reinstated....let's see, Reagan destroyed that! Hear that, Obama??

There's no doubt in my mind at all that the mass media (networks, papers, etc) have deliberately excluded Edwards. Every network did pieces on the candidates after New Hampshire; they included Guiliani with his small showing but excluded Edwards in every report.

Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell were particularly guilty of it. Heck, I like Charlie Gibson a lot but even he is biased as hell.

It's shameful. I don't know how any of these reporters or anchors can call themselves JOURNALISTS.

I'm ashamed of them.

Edward's camp is absolutely correct that the media has focused more attention on Obama and Clinton. But, it is up to Edwards and his CAMP to draw attention to his camp. Edwards and his camp should take a good look in the mirror if they want to blame anyone. It was an open field. John Edward was a household name in America four years ago, that was 3 years11 months before the name Barack Obama came into the picture. EDWARDs, you have to initiate change and bring the attention BACK to you. Don't blame the media entirely for this. I was hoping for an Edwards /Obama ticket this November 08 because I think Edwards has a better chance for democrats to reclaim the White HOulse.

If Edwards is not the nominee, I will support Obama. I will not vote,support,endorse Hillary Clinton. She and her husband has done too much to divide the country.

I have noticed this for months. A couple of weeks ago Bryan Williams asked Tim Russert why he thought people were complaining that coverage wasn't equal. Tim Russert said "some candidates don't deserve the coverage because they haven't earned it" and they won't get coverage until they earn it. I couldn't believe the arrogance on live TV. I used to be a big fan of Tim Russert, but now I can hardly watch him at all. John Edwards has been all but ignored by the media. This is not sour grapes on his part. This is truly what he is experiencing and it's wrong.

This is a point that I'm in agreement with. I realized some days ago that political news articles seem to be focusing entirely on Obama or Clinton and although it's understandable that news agencies are after the ratings and considering that the polls show Obama and Clinton ahead, it's safe to assume that the focus is primarily on them. However, as someone who is still unsure about which Democratic candidate to vote for, it is unfair, not only to Edwards but to all voters alike that a fair and equal amount of coverage is not given all three Democratic candidates.

That's OK. It's clear that the MSM hates Edwards' anti-corporate message. These are the folks that pay people a lot of money to comment on the hairstyles of the rich and famous. They believe they shape pop culture, and they are increasingly wrong and irrelevant. Soon TV will go the way of newspapers and dinosaurs. The CEOs better get their private armies lined out, 'caus the rabble's going to be at the gate soon.....

Is Edwards running again? Maybe he should tell the media that he is considering dropping out, then maybe they will be all over that story and he can say "just kidding."

Now it is hitting Edwards. Ron Paul has been completed blacked out for weeks. Kucinich has been also treated with no respect.

To the media of the United States we now see the two faced criminals you have become.

On one hand show only your chosen few and on the other ,completely belittle and starve off freedom of choice to the American Voter.

News Media you are hurting the American People!

Fox is being boycotted, with all it's sponsers, for having blackballed Ron Paul during the New Hampshire debates.

Modern corperate news is not reporting the story they are manipulating it.

Time for all Americans to scream back at all the talking heads. I don't care who you support for President. This no longer has anything to do with the candidates.

This has to do with your right to be informed and not influenced for the media purposes.

I'm mad at the machine. So are a lot of Americans. Let freedom of speech mean something. Write a letter a day to a National News Corp and let them know you won't take it any more.

Boycotts work. So does dumping Corp Stock Holdings. Time to light the fire of freedom. Time for America to wake up and scream enough!

I never really finished my last comment. Yes John Edwards is gettting a real unfair deal. Media is focussing on Hillary because Bill CRIES OUT all the time and Obama gets coverage because he is the fresh Kid.. John has been there and failed– Brutality in Politics. Issus have taken a back seat.
Go Obama and Go John Edwards.

john, you are completely correct! you are the right candidate with the right program for america. the media has not taken you seriously from the get-go. they have covered your campaign unevenly from the others. but that is not unexpected, given the huge money interests against you. our democracy should not and cannot be bought by the highest bidder. keep saying what your saying and the word will get out!

John Edwards has every right to challenge the news media for unfairly and inadequately covering him and his campaign.

The news media is backing Barack Obama (at the expense of our country) and the rationale is entirely profit driven. We must remember that the news media is part of the entertainment industry and is seeking to expand its market share this year.

The news media wants news stories that attract large audiences. With large audiences comes higher advertising revenue, and more advertising revenue means more profit. Obama is new and exciting, and he generates large audiences, high advertising revenue, and high profit. Hillary is a woman, and although she would be the first woman presidential candidate, her star appeal (and profit making ability) is lower than Obama’s.

The media absolutely does not want Edwards as the Democratic candidate. Where’s the entertainment appeal there? A white male Democratic candidate will not do much for ratings.

The news media is doing everything it can to push its chosen candidate (Obama) to victory: and the media just might be able to pull it off. After all, in politics, perception is reality; and the media controls perception (except for those of us who can see through all that).

Sorry John, from a media perspective, honest and qualified white males are passé as Democratic candidates.

Too bad he isn't as concerned about who is allowed at the debates. Wasn't he also one of the candidates who was discussing how to keep the other candidates out? I have no respect for this individual.

It is not just that Edwards is not getting coverage but that the coverage he gets is not as strong or without question as Obama's coverage. Whenever Edwards (and Hillary for that matter) say something the press and others cherry-pick it, ask questions about it, and downplay it. Whenever Obama makes a statement it is taken as the whole truth, that it is gospel, and that whatever he says is something new.

It's a good thing we have freedom of the press in the good old USA. Just think if our nation's media outlets were owned by partisan sole proprietorships and special interest foreigners....

Hey the media is unfair– they fail to cover the issue and then they lament that issues are not being mentioned. Media pays attention to whatever sells advertizing junk– i.e., race issues. Who cares about Iraq!! we have soldiers dying everyday recently and it is shown in text scroll under CNN, while the Republicans and other cronies scream and shout;; "THe surge is Working". Please wake up media– you are destroying this country. You destroyed Howard Dean last time by replaying his "Protest".

I absolutely agree with the Edward's campaign. The national media decides who our candidates will be by the amount of coverage they choose to give them. If our system were fair, the candidates would be given "equal time" before the primaries, money would be taken out of the equation, and the media would be giving us the FACTS about what these people have done, who they are, and what they have worked for during their adult lives. Instead, media prefers to get mixed up in (and perpetuate) the trivial, mud slinging squabbles we are forced to witness. No wonder Washington is broken.....our election system is broken!

John Edwards has never been a contender. Not in 2004, not now. As Obama told Hillary, "You're likeable enough, Hillary," that's what most think of him. And when he obviously went off on Hillary, teaming with Obama to knock her off, that didn't make him too popular. Have to wonder why he chose Obama instead of Hillary as a partner in crime. Didn't work!

He has a great family, and is no doubt a pretty good person, but his place has never been in this race. It has to be noticeable to all concerned that if you're not winning, you're not making news. And after his outing with Kerry as VP candidate, it's doubtful he'll be considered for a repeat.

John Edwards is the only candidate who can win Ohio and, hence, the election.

He is right on the issues.

We will wait for you, John, for the Ohio primary in March.

edwards.... ? who is john edwards? i think 3 rd place finishes are really second place losers. come on gang if he had something to offer people would pay attention, its not the messenger its the message. give up johnny its all but over.

>i wouldn't even know who Ron Paul is if it wasn't for my own research.

You want a cookie? EVERYBODY who cares about the direction this country's going should do their own research, always.

John Edwards has gotten very little coverage all along. He has come in second in Iowa and the press just ignored that. He continues to run a strong campaign. He is not black, nor a woman, so the media has ignored him. Why is it that the media has decided who will be our canidates? Is this really a free country?

I agree and we shouldn't stand for it. The media (owned by the elite corporations that are running this country) are the very people John talks about that don't want to give him any attention in hopes that he might just go away if he is ignored.

They don't want his powerful message about the elimination of the "middle class" to catch on because people might "wake up" and really see what's happening.

If you still think these elections are fair and honest after the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections then you are the kind of person just like the movie said "Can 't handle the truth"

Only fools can't see this. They want the two candidates that have been "bought and paid for" to get the nomination.

Edwards is the one with the fight in him to take them on. Don't forget that the media brought us the Irag War along with Bushie & Co. GIO EDWARDS.

Liz

Edwards should go back to his home and learn to sell used cars.
He is very good at it.

Yeah, I'm not an Edwards supporter, but his coverage has been bleak considering how well he has been doing. Same thing has happened on the Republican side too.

To all who consider this only whining: What if your candidate received a media blackout? What if suddenly, no matter what channel you turned to, you never heard any mention of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? None at all? You had to rely only on their commercials for their postions on the issues. And if the media did mention their names, it would only be to say things like, "Everyone knows Hillary doesn't have a chance anymore. Back to more about the only candidate that matters, John Edwards". You know that would not be fair and that you would be upset. "Hey, they didn't mention Hillary (Obama, Thompson, etc). at all in the news today? What's up with that?"
That is pretty much how this campaign has been covered by the media since Day 1. At first, it was a "three person battle". Just ask the staunch supporters of Biden, Dodd, and Richardson here in Iowa. They each received barely any coverage from the very beginning. The media's response is that they polled low. No wonder! It's a vicious cycle. Ignore certain candidates not allowing voters to know they even exist, then show polls with little support for them, and then ignore them even more because they have low poll numbers. No brainer there. Now that they have all dropped out, largely due to the lack of free media coverage which could have helped them get their message out, Edwards is also being eliminated from coverage as the media focused on their top two darlings.
Regardless of who your candidate of choice is, it is only logical that all candidates should get equal coverage by the meda. Media coverage, i.e. free publicity, amounts to millions of dollars in savings for a candidate who then doesn't have to spend as much on commercials to get out their message.
It's too bad this was not exposed more while all candidates were still in Iowa, in time for them to get the support they might have needed. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson each have more experience than Edward, Obama, and Clinton combined, yet failed to be supported with free media attention, hurting their campaigns and helping to lead to each of them dropping out of the race.

Bet he didn't get invited to too many Birthday parties when he was a kid, either. Poor Johnnie. The Charlie Brown image just really doesn't suit you to well, buddy.

Save your breath and your supporter's money.....pack it in now and go home to take care of the wife and kiddies.

"A website that CITES..."

I couldn't agree more. Every time I turn on CNN ABC CBS ETC. the " news " is all Clinton and Obama. Its obvious the media is trying to suppress his candidacy because they're constantly labeling him as advocating "class warfare" and being angry....For me its obvious there's been class abuse for decades since Reagan. Its okay for the rich to get richer at the middle class expense but if the middle class wants a fairer share of the pie its "class warfare"!!!!!!!!
As far as angry is concerned there's alot to be angry about!!!!!!!
If you're not angry about the direction this country is heading then you oughta stop popping all those pills and/or get a mental health checkup/brain scan

Edwards has to blame himself for this one. His petty little game against Hillary backfired on him big time.

Once he openly endorsed Obama in the debate in Newhampshire, he casted himself as IRRELEVANT. Therefore why should anybody should pay attention to what he has to say if he will just be going around defending and promoting Obama.

Edwards is the worst of the bad politicians out there and he is the kind of guy that gives a bad name to politics and turn people off.

He wanted to be Obama #1 attack dog, why is he crying now that people focus on Obama as he asked them to.

So its fine when the media covers the top 3 candidates but not when they only cover the top 2? Why didn't Edwards complain when Kucinich was pulled from the MSNBC debate this past Tuesday? I mean, if he's for fairness and allowing the American public to hear from all candidates then he should have been worried about this from the beginning.

I don't even care for Edwards, but I totally agree. What ever happened to Joe Biden? It is a no wonder that Richardson dropped out! Come on, media, let everyone hear about all the candidates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the person who wrote this article could have chosen his/her words more carefully, as I tend to interpret words according to their meanings. More specifically, I don't think Bill Clinton was 'visibly combative' at all. He did, however, appear to be on the defensive, with regard a question or comment put to him by the reporter.

It hurts when the media is not giving you fair, accurate coverage. Maybe he should dye his hair pink. HILLARY 2008!

John Edwards should probably be proud of the fact that he isn't getting the kind of media attention that the other two candidates have been getting... He isn't involved in the bickering or other petty behavior, and appears to have more integrity than Obama or Clinton. I hope he can come thru the media with intelligence and integrity as we need a strong Democrat to win this election.

I agree that the media has done its best to ignore Edwards! The American majority declared they don't want a war that was started based on Bush's illegal activities. I find it difficult to swallow that John McCaine is the contender of choice! I feel it is the media, going with the will of the current government, who is pushing and not the voters talking! The media is VERY biased against Edwards! McCaine and Clinton are the contenders of choice for them!

I agree the media has been neglecting John Edwards. On the Republican side, the same could be said for Ron Paul. Both candidates would really provide the CHANGE that everyone is talking about. All others unfortunately, would really bring the status quo.

I agree. I am voting for Clinton, but Edwards has not had very good coverage or a fair shake. But then, Chris Matthews showed how utterly biased the press is really is when he openly gushed about Obama on Jay Leno. It looks like Fox got it right and that I don't like to see. Honestly, reporters should report and if they don't do that, get out of the business and work for the campaign you work to promote.

At least theyre still letting Edwards debate.... I wish I could say the same thing for Kucinich. I do think that the media is playing a HUGE role in this years election and I'm glad that some of the candidates are fighting back.

John Edwards AND the rest of the Democratic candidates. If you are not one of the top two candidates, the media doesn't even mention you. What a sham our media is today – what a sham.

i have to agree with Edwards on this one. even though i do not particularly like Edwards, it's very obvious that the media has been forcing certain candidates down our throat for the past few months.

seriously, it's pathetic at this point. i wouldn't even know who Ron Paul is if it wasn't for my own research. i'm glad i found that guy!

It's not that the media intentionally prevents Edwards from receiving coverage, it is that we are in a campaign where "he said, she said" back-and-forths dominate the news in an echo chamber of media coverage of other media coverage. This limits the attention given to all the candidates as well as to the serious issues the candidates who are not being heard are trying to bring to our attention. CNN should remedy this by more carefully allocating its airtime and attention to all the candidates and to a better discussion of serious issues, rather than covering the campaigns the same way as it does Paris, Britney and Lindsay.

The Edwards camp cites recent news headlines, not "sites" I realize this is just a blog, but it is a CNN blog.

YES, I AGREE, EDWARDS AND OBAMA MAKE AN EXCELLENT TEAM, AND, I THNK TOGETHER THEY COULD TURN AMERICA AROUND FOR THE PEOPLE AGAIN. "OBAMA/EDWARDS " THE WAY TO GO. I WOULD GO ALL OUT FOR A
WOMAN PRESIDENT, "THE RIGHT ONE" CLINTON WILL DIVIDE AND DESTROY AMERICA.

John Edwards is a fighter (and probably too angry for his own good). Somehow, he still doesn't appear like presidential mateiral – Vice Presidential. Maybe that is why the media doesn't take him seriously, and his own supporters from 2004 are backing HILLARY and Obama this time around.

I was displeased with John when he and Obama ganged up on HILLARY in the pre-New Hampshire debate. It was so infantile and BULLY-LIKE, and propably offended the sensibilities of fair-minded New Hampshireans.

Probably contibuted to why HILLARY won.

HILLARY will win in the end, and while in the past I hoped John could be HILLARY's vice, I don't feel good about it anymore. He is too acerbic, even acidic! a

GO HILLARY!!!

I agree with Edwards.

John Edwards is proud of the fact that he doesn't take money from lobbyists/special interests. That's really admirable, but the bottom line, literally, is that he can't pay for the media coverage Clinton and Obama can.
Remember, this is politics, and the political machine is greased with pictures of the Presidents.

I'd rather hear about John Edwards than Bill and Hillary.
The Clintons are sounding more negative everyday.
An Obama/Edwards ticket is an excellent idea.

If he wants more coverage needs to quit agreeing with Obama on everything and attacking Hillary. If he lets his voice and his opinions be heard maybe he would get in the news. He never goes after Obama so why would anybody vote for him. I know he is different but hasn't shown it to the american people yet. He keeps letting Obama grab the media attention. Today he finally went after Obama on his remark about Reagan. He should speak loudly since he is union man and Reagan busted unions while president. JOHN speak up! Let your voice be heard if you want votes. Go to all media outlets until you are heard.

I agree with John Edwards. I think Clinton should speak up too because it's obvious that most media venues, especially CNN.com, favor Obama. I used to be an avid cnn.com reader, but now I spend my time reading a variety of news sites because I'm so sick of the ugly media spins. I can just picture the CNN writers at their computers typing up political articles with their "greater than thou" pro-Obama attitudes shining through their rhetoric. It's so obvious that it's embarrassing.

In our culture, I’m afraid that the first electable woman and black candidates are just more newsworthy than a white guy from the South – just like latest news of Brittany Spears!
The press is so enthralled with these possible “firsts” that they loose sight of the issues. Is this reverse discrimination?
I would support John, Hillary or Obama but the press has created an unequal playing field. It’s time to take all the candidates seriously so that we can choose the best candidate.

The liberal press (redundant, I know) wants a Democrat to win. John is a proven loser. And a phony.

I support Obama and I support Edwards after Obama. Obama/Edwards ticket will be so wonderful and historic for America.

Gee, the corporate-owned media are giving preference to the corporate-owned candidates. Y' think there might be a connection?

When you're getting screwed over, you call a lawyer.

Vote Edwards!

I have not made a decision on who I am backing...but I could not agree more about this topic. The media is not fair or unbiased I used to be a news reporter/anchor for radio and have noticed more and more that reporters make no effort what so ever to hide their opinions when writing and reporting. Ignoring Edwards is the same as endorsing Clinton or Obama. It's just wrong...but the media gets away with everything these days.

Edwards deserves equal coverage. The different between him and the others is the change he is pushing is to get special interests and lobbyist out of the whitehouse. They don't belong in our policial process. Until anyone else can step up and agree Edwards were will receive little coverage because the media is afraid he'll win. But even without the media coverage or the million dollar campaigns filled with dirty special interest and PAC money he is doing awesome! That's something everyone should get fired up about. The opportunity to have someone who is working for you...not the money.

I'm not even supporting Edwards...but how can you doubt that the media hasn't really covered him as extensively...it is plain as day

CNN
Why is it always
Slashes
Bashes
Lashes
Slams
Slams Can't you ever just report the news instead of trying to make the news

Major media outlets are owned by the same mega corporations that Edwards is speaking out against.

UNFAIR treatment of Senator Edwards, the media once again are conditioning the minds of every American voters there are only two candidates in democratic party.

Edwards deserve the same coverage like Clinton and Obama.

ATTENTION: CNN

Cover Senator Edwards please, we also wanted to hear his point of view on issues that matters to us.

Edwards is right. CNN is working for Hiillary. The media is all owned by huge corporations who's interests are not served by Edward's stance on reigning in corporate influence on government.

Nice!

Go Edwards

What a crybaby. "Waahhh, Hillary and Barack are in the news more than I am" Please. Instead of playing the victim and blaming the press, Edwards should bottonhole his campaign manager and start makiing some of his own headlines. Is this how Edwards will act if/when he gets to the oval office?

Obama/Edwards Great for the Country. Don't let Bill Clinton get a third term under his wifes name.

Go John! Go Barack! Omaba / Edwards "08 ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

As a Canadian, I totally agree with John Edwards. I dont' have a vote but I do feel his statement is legitimate.

Quite frankly, I am on the same page as John. I'm getting a bit weary of hearing only about Clinton and Obama. This blog site certainly seems to give them preference over any of the other Candidates.

Fair is Fair. And to the money comment. One shouldn't have to pay for media coverage in a Presidential Campaign. All should be given fair media coverage and air time.

For heaven's sake! Those of you who suggest anyone concede (well, maybe Gravel) are nuts! If you were the candidate and looked at the number of delegates already awarded, would YOU concede? Put another way, would you concede a baseball game in the first inning? Edwards is within striking range. How about those of us who haven't had a chance to vote in the primary? Think it through, folks.

As a Canadian who has long followed American Presidental races it is stunning to the the blatent ignoring of John Edwards. They will has some 'splaining to do when they try to hoist themselves back on the bandwagon, as they will most surely have to do in the near future.

I agree with Mr Edwards. Although I'll probably not vote for him, I believe that more and better dialog needs be heard from ALL the candidates.

Thanks CNN for helping the "ministry of information" control what people think.

What does it matter if the media covers Edwards or not, he is losing and will lose in the end.

Go Obama!

Wonder what would happen if the MSM started covering the primary in an honest and responsible way and gave Sen. Edwards equal coverage. His poll numbers (for what they are worth) would increase, no doubt.

Shame on CNN and other media outlets for refusing to cover Edwards, and for that matter, other candidates as well.

I agree with John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and especially Barack Obama are getting far too much coverage by the press. The one thing I disagree on is him winning the debate. I'm an Edwards supporter, but Hillary Clinton clearly won the debate.

Mr. Edwards – you have to have a remote prayer of winning for the media to cover you. They are covering the FRONTRUNNERS. When you're running 20 and 30 points behind the second place person in every poll (including the national polls) and you get a distant 3rd in New Hampshire, the legitimacy of your candidacy is called into question. The only reason you did well in Iowa is that you've been campaigning there for 4 YEARS straight. Stop pretending that you're not running for VP and just go ahead and drop out.

Edwards' low poll numbers are because he ran on the ticket once and lost. Democrats are over Edwards, just like they are over Kerry. MOVE ON.

Glad to see the issue raised. Obviously those in the media think they know what is best for us and that they can lead us around like sheep. They want ratings and are prepared to light fires under the issue af race and gender to get them. This was obvious when MSNBC Chris Matthews acted like a teenage boy who had just fallen in love following the debate. As I recall not long ago he was saying Clinton was where she was at based upon Bill's playing around. What ever happened to honest reporting? The news has become nothing more than pretty boys and girls trying to look like they know what they are talking about when they haven't got a clue. Each network bringing out "experts" who are unwilling or unable to actually make intelligent obversations.

Oh please, the only candidate who has any right to complain is Ron Paul. CNN and Fox has practically eliminated him from any coverage. I have no doubt, that if Ron Paul had the same coverage as McCain or even Edwards, then he would be one of the front runners.

Media is owned by big corporations and big corporations want to decide our election - looks like it's worked on some of the commentators here. When Hillary and Obama are bought and paid for by lobbyists - and therefore won't bring about any REAL CHANGE - I'll gladly vote for who they don't want, and that is John Edwards. Edwards is the ONLY candidate who can beat any Republican in the general election (check the CNN poll for yourself - the latest one they did, though, they left Edwards OUT because they didn't want us to know the results - he STILL is the only one who can beat any Republican). A vote for Hillary or Obama is ultimately a vote for a Republican to win in the fall - and that is exactly what the big corporations that control this country want.

I'm not an Edwards supporter but an AMERICAN. It is an American issue when the media tries to control the election along with corporations. I guess some of you just don't get it.

Sorry to say it, but when it's among Hillary, a Obama and Edwards, the run-of-the-mill white male doesn't quite have the edge for "ground breaking news" no matter how qualified the candidate is. (for the record, i like Edwards a lot). Perhaps he should do something ostentatious like hold a press conference in his underwear (jk), i bet that will get media frenzy he deserves.

The Edwards camp is right. The way the media has handled this campaign is sickening. Stop trying to pick the candidates for us.

All the media wants to talk about, particularly CNN, is the first black president or first woman president. This is not a sociology experiment. We are picking a president.

Report the news (all of it – including Edwards) and let US decide who to vote for.

Well of course they don't pay attention to him. All the media is controlled, financially, by large corporate interests who give a heckuva lot of money to politicians and who do a heckuva lot of lobbying on Capitol Hill. John Edwards' message is to get rid of that stuff. Makes perfect sense.

Read The Nation.

How ironic that CNN would chose to run this story, since they recently did a poll on head-to-head match-ups and left out Edwards, even though their same poll the month before showed that Edwards out-matched ALL Republicans and did better than Hillary or Obama.

I'd like to take this opportunity to again ask CNN to re-do their poll, preferably before SC, but maybe they don't want to show that Edwards might actually be leading in the head-to-heads?

He's right. But the problem is that he got PLENTY of coverage last time. People already know him and his "mill/lawyer story". That's the downfall of running for Prez twice. He better take a number and get in line behind the looooooong list of women and minorities that have been marginalized since......well forever. This is how it feels John. See why minorities and women are always complaining???

Let's look at the numbers, and after you see them, compare them to POSITIONS IN POLL NUMBERS. They correlate perfectly, like I have said all year long.

Out of all candidates, major news outlets mentioned Clinton 25% of the time, Obama 15% of the time, and Edwards 3% for John Edwards.

What that means, is the top 3 Democrats have received 43% of the coverage, and of the top 3 Democrats in the race, Clinton has received 58% of that coverage, Barack Obama 35% of that coverage, and John Edwards 7% of the coverage.

So, you have:

Clinton 58%
Obama 35%
Edwards 7%

Edwards has received roughly 1/8th of Clinton's coverage and 1/5th of Obama's.

Now, look at some national poll numbers and some poll numbers from states that are in the highest media markets, like NY, Florida, and California, or states where not a lot of face-to-face campaigning has been going on, and the poll numbers and poll positions for those 3 candidates almost perfectly mirror the those PROPORTIONALLY.

I agree with John Edwards. If he had won just won of those states he would not have a press problem. Remember he has practically lived in Iowa since the last election. Obtianing an initial breakthrough was his job. Didn't happen. I am sorry. He is a good man but his campaign is another bust.

Terry A.
Are you serious! clinton won t
she nevada debate? Uh, no...Just because your loud, or talk over the time allotted to speak, try to bash the other candidates with cheap shots and smear tactics doesn't necessarily mean you've won a debate. What it means is that your of the status quo. Your probably what needs to be kicked out of washington, and your probably a divider and not a uniter....

way to go hillary. If you keep this stuff, barack will be sure to win...

obama 08

This is absolutely true. Edwards has not been getting equal coverage- the majority of the time the democratic race is referred to in terms of Clinton and Obama. It is fine time that something has been said because the media has been irresponsible and skewed in their coverage.

Edwards has been expressing this for some time... if this were happening to Clinton or Obama you can bet that they'd be saying the same thing. But Edwards is neither a white woman or an African-American man. Need I say more?

The media are the sheepherders and most people are sheep, just dying to be led...

Edwards is right about this. Instead of hearing about his campaign, we get Hillary adding "flight attendant" to her list of "experience."