Edwards Campaign Continues Media Tweaks

Yesterday, it was a press release complaining that Edwards didn't receive his fair share of coverage. Today, the campaign is trying to wound the media's sense of pride by pointing out that Frank Luntz's focus group preferred Edwards' debate performance.

Edwards has a point of sorts, although the campaign's verging on whiny about it. Edwards has a rationale to stay in the race if he keeps accumulating delegates, and as the only Southerner, has a shot to win some of the Feb. 5 contests.

But, if we were playing Jeopardy! and Edwards, Clinton and Obama were listed as the three choices, the question would be: "Who Is John Edwards?" (and why does he belong in this category?)

Comments

Meanwhile, the Nevada judge has ruled that the at-large precincts are okay, a major boost for Obama.

Posted by Daniel | January 17, 2008 3:43 PM

Shorter Ambinder: "What do you expect me to do about it? I just work here..."

Posted by dry_fish | January 17, 2008 3:50 PM

On a more serious note, I do think that part of Edwards' media problem extends from the fact that the media is bored with him and his campaign. For months its been as if the Edwards campaign through its message has been offering the media a vegetable-only diet when the other guys offer mostly red meats and sugar (supersized). For reporters, it's no contest.

Posted by dry_fish | January 17, 2008 3:58 PM

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.

You have no credibility on this story, and it is hilarious that you now take the Edwards campaign to task for saying EXACTLY what you admitted to months ago.

You still haven't named names, which is just pure cowardice.

Posted by drfranklives | January 17, 2008 4:28 PM

If the best evidence for success you have is a Frank Luntz focus group, you're in trouble.
Obama and Clinton have been running their campaigns to cater to the mainstream media, while Edwards has been running his to cater to the blogosphere. He's basically been borrowing the worst elements of the Dean campaign, so it's no wonder the media ignores him.

Posted by Mike | January 17, 2008 4:29 PM

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.

You have no credibility on this story, and it is hilarious that you now take the Edwards campaign to task for saying EXACTLY what you admitted to months ago.

You still haven't named names, which is just pure cowardice.

Posted by drfranklives | January 17, 2008 4:29 PM

I don't think pointing out the truth makes them whiny. If they don't object, who will?

Seriously, Marc.

Posted by Joe Justice | January 17, 2008 4:42 PM

Edwards is boring ......He talks about people losing jobs, the elderly losing pensions while their bosses get millions in bonuses, others dying for lack of health care, thousands of veterans homeless, (while everyone piously screams about SUPPORTING THE TROOPS); Edwards speaks about supporting Unions without which there is no middle class (compare the First and Third Worlds).....
The accumulation of wealth in the one, two percent of the population (See feudal systems)
And horror of all horrors! People suing doctors, hospitals if through their negligence a person suffers death or injury. Would not suing encourage anyone to try very hard not to make mistakes? Same for manufactures; are they more careful in making sure of the safety of their products because of the fear of law suits.......BORING, BORING.
All this is BORING....!
No Oprah......Songs, Inspirations, Hope....First black president - with Obama racial prejudice will end in the whole world; all with hold hands....Osama will crawl out his cave, sink to his knees asking for forgiveness at Obama's altar....HOW COULD YOU NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA???? It makes sense.

Posted by inessa | January 17, 2008 4:48 PM

Meh, Edwards is trading at like 1.7 on Intrade. Maybe the media aren't paying him any attention because everyone knows he's not going to win.

Posted by theis | January 17, 2008 4:49 PM

Dear "dry_fish," regarding you statement (see below), I think you have it backwards. The only real "meat" that I have heard constitently from the candidates comes from Edwards. He states the problems as he sees them and proposes detailed solutions. No other candidate I have heard has offered such detail. All of the other candidates speak about platitudes, "Kum-ba-ya," and vague ideas.

"dry_fish said:

"Edwards campaign through its message has been offering the media a vegetable-only diet when the other guys offer mostly red meats and sugar (supersized). For reporters, it's no contest."

I say GO EDWARDS!

Posted by Kirk G. | January 17, 2008 5:20 PM

FRANK IS A BUFFOON. Frank said:

If the best evidence for success you have is a Frank Luntz focus group, you're in trouble. Obama and Clinton have been running their campaigns to cater to the mainstream media, while Edwards has been running his to cater to the blogosphere. He's basically been borrowing the worst elements of the Dean campaign, so it's no wonder the media ignores him.

NEITHER Clinton or Obama have done SQUAT.

The media DECIDES who it will cover, and it's too bad that you are too ignorant to understand that.

Posted by framecop | January 17, 2008 5:29 PM

Maybe the ignorant thesis doesn't know that the media wasn't covering Edwards when he was much higher on Intrade.

After all, from the day he announced in December 2006, the media has been talking about NOTHING BUT CLINTON AND OBAMA, and he was the only freaking candidate in the race at that time.

Go somewhere and find a brain.

Posted by framecop | January 17, 2008 5:31 PM

In addition to being an anti-Edwards douche bag, Marc, you obviously have no idea how the game of Jeopardy! is played.

Posted by Anonymous | January 17, 2008 5:39 PM

The media suppression is at the bequest of their corporate masters. It doesn't take a genuis to figure it out. An Edwards Presidency would be a death knell to the FAT CAT DC insiders and they know it. Whenever Edwards word gets out through a debate performance or on the ground when people have really gotten to hear him, he has surged in the polls. The result: media blackouts.An the polls go down. Americans should be outraged, instead of mesmerized by the medias manipulation of what we see.It could be your candidate next.

I find it ironic this media driven 24/7 frenzy for the 2 most flawed candidates in a General election. Edwards beats ALL the GOP candidates and by the widest margin, even though the media doesn't want you to know this. They have even begun not including Edwards in their polls.Biden, Dodd, Richardsen, all have more experience and yet were marginalized from the getgo. Look to motive Why would that be?
Why are the DCinsiders lining up to endorse these two? because they are both DC insiders, they circle their wagons around their own, so we the American people once again lose by electing the most 2 most unelectable, sending them into the lions den with the GOP.
In 2004 Karl Rove stated Edwards was who they most feared. And they wanted to face Kerry, and we all know the results.Say NO to Corporate owned Democrats.At the debate the other day Obama mentioned being anti NRA, wow! second ammendment and all... that would have been front page news with any other candidiate, where's the story. It serves the medias agenda to squelch it. Only 3 States have voted Edwards has 19 delegates to Obama 24 and Clintons 25,still 47 states have yet to vote, and yet they call him out of contention, why? because they want him out of the way..WHY?

Remember look to the medias motive....and really start paying attention. Our very Democracy is at risk
Edwards 2008 The People President
Returning the government back to We the People

Posted by Jeanne S | January 17, 2008 5:45 PM

Given the corporate media coverage of the Edwards campaign, which has ranged from a virtual blackout, to slights, to bias, to carefully crafted marginalization, the campaign has been remarkable in doing so little "whining."

I supported Edwards (wasn't part of the campaign) but became more fervent in my support precisely because of the corporate media's bias, and as I watched the other candidates try to co-opt the message.

Of course, that's how it plays out . . . the corporate media attempts to marginalize a candidate (see how in the recent debate the hosts took questions for Obama and Clinton and none for Edwards, allowed Clinton especially to make lengthy speeches, allowed back and forth between Obama and Clinton ad nauseum--and in the end, Edwards got probably half the speaking time of the other candidates) and then, if they point out the unfairness, they will be branded as whiners.

Actual Jeopardy Exchange:
Q: A reporter who runs with the herd, writes poorly, and is unashamed to post a shallow little hatchet job that couldn't have taken more than a couple of minutes to put together.
A: Who is Marc Ambinder?

Posted by AGee | January 17, 2008 6:45 PM

Ummmm...gee....do you think that maybe all that sophisticated spy technology in the casinos is, like, um, a problem? Anybody watch any of the Oceans 11, 12, 64 films?

Posted by edwardsrocks | January 17, 2008 7:16 PM

Re: "Edwards has a point of sorts, although the campaign's verging on whiny about it."

Wow, just wow. It's one thing to ignore someone, but it's an entirely different thing to kick a man when he's down (not for long though). Nice work. I'll be avoiding this "blog" and its "substantive" coverage of the issues from now on.

Posted by Unreal | January 17, 2008 7:26 PM

whiny?? how about "poor journalism" on the part of the main stream media??

if the media is so boooored with john edwards, maybe it's cuz he actually sounds like a real president, while the media would rather cover hillary and barack putting their foot in their mouths talking about race and ronald reagan...

what's boring is listening to obama drone on and on and on for 3 freakin minutes about how he's not good at keeping schedules or doing paperwork. seriously, we don't care barack, and that little tidbit of info does not exactly strike confidence in voters!!!

Posted by kenshin | January 17, 2008 7:50 PM

I don't think Edwards is against corporations, he's against irresponsible corporations. Most of the news media is owned by corporations. Perhaps they feel threatened by Edwards. Corporations have a legally defined mandate to pursue relentlessly and without exception its own economic self-interest, regardless of the harmful consequences it might cause to others. Some of these Republicans act like the U.S. is a corporation. This is a country of citizens that must put the interest of its citizens as its primary interest, not corporations. Corporations are not held accountable nor do they need to be accountable to the public. That's why Republicans want to privitize everything so their agenda can be accomplished without the need for accountability to the American public. As a lawyer Edwards saw first hand the greed and the lack of accountabilty that corporations have toward the people. If individuals are held accountable for their actions then surely corporations should be too. The power of corporations over the citizens of the U.S. proves that a guy like Edwards needs to be president, not to stop the good things that a corporation does, but to stop it's excessive greed and to hold corporations accountable for its actions just as we hold our government accountable. It is simply wrong to let corporations be more powerful than our government.

Posted by Earl | January 17, 2008 8:01 PM

of course, what else do i expect from this site anyway, not real journalism, YOU'VE GOT A FREAKING HILLARY CLINTON AD ON THIS SITE!

whiny indeed...if i'm whiny, you're paid off:

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

opensecrets.org

Posted by kenshin | January 17, 2008 8:12 PM

The media picks the president unfortunately. I am sure if Edwards got as much attention as Hillary, he would HAVE WON BY NOW.. GO JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Rhonda | January 17, 2008 10:13 PM

To all Edwards supporters: congrats and keep fighting the good fight! He can win the presidency, but more importantly you can carry on the ideals he fights for -- your ideals -- and ensure they are enacted by whichever democrat becomes president this year. Real change is hard, but worth it. Go John!

Posted by hope | January 18, 2008 4:02 AM

If you want to see this continue to be a 3 way race (even though it's rarely reported as such), or you are an Edwards supporter, donate today to his campaign...there is a netroots effort today to raise $7 million in one day, and if we pull it off I think it will be hard for the media to ignore...visit johnedwards(dot)com to donate (obviously remover the (dot) and put a . )

Today is the day!! Go Edwards!!

Posted by Judy | January 18, 2008 11:46 AM

Russ Feingold on Edwards at Acropolis Review:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

Posted by Jake | January 18, 2008 1:49 PM

I do not call back Edwards is against corporations, he is against feckless corporations.
___________________________
David
Wide Circles

Posted by david fernandis | July 29, 2008 2:04 AM