Tom Paine - When is the idea primary?

[Mass]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=342404&mesg_id=342404

This is really part of what makes me sick in this process (and made me sick during the 04 primary season as well)? When will we stop of speaking about the process and start speaking about substance. And it is even worse when the candidate and their staff help doing that! :banghead:

[beachmom]

1. You guys know I'm not a big Edwards fan, but what's happening to

him in the MSM (basically being ignored unless Ann Coulter calls him a name) is reprehensible. He's got a lot of supporters and his platform is different from the others. Yet he is ignored in favor of Hillary and Obama. I don't get it. I think it's tough for any of the others to break out of the field, but Edwards has been polling well on a consistent basis, and it strikes me as odd that he is being so flagrantly ignored. I think it's because he's not as interesting a "personality" as the other two. No conspiracy theory against populism. Just plain and simple, that the media is only interested in "stars" and have decided there is only enough room for two (and Edwards is old, yawn, from 2004). It's beyond ridiculous.


Edited to add: I am basing this on an NPR report I listened to this morning. They mention all three 2008 GOP candidates but only 2 on the Dem side.

[Mass]

2. It is not about Edwards (or Kerry, or Dodd, or Clark). It is about the system.

In 2004, it was virtually impossible for Kerry to push an issue, which is largely why so many people (not all of them disingenuously) continue to say that Kerry did not offer a vision or proposed reforms.

The media want a narrative. Hillary and Obama offer an easy narrative.

Hillary is a woman (Is America ready for a woman?), and Bill's wife (How is Bill going to play in the primary?). Add to that the fact the narrative about Iraq (Will she say she was wrong?).

Obama is black (Afro-American, mixed race, put the qualificative that you like) (Is America ready for an Afro-American president). He does not have a lot of national experience (Is he ready to govern?). He is an outsider.

Edwards only has two sides and they have already been used in 04. He does not have a lot of experience. He talks about poverty while he is rich.

Guess where there are more stories to cover?

Of course, if one of these candidates had the courage to make media coverage and the right to information an issue of the campaign, may be things could change. But they do not and all of them play with the coverage.

It is ridiculous, but the candidates brought that upon themselves. Edwards spent a very long time in this campaign talking about how he was going to answer all the attacks. He is now stuck having to answer stupid attacks (like Ann Coulter's) rather than talking about real issues.

[karynnj]

3. It's paticularly striking when you look where Romney is polling

In most polls I have seen, he is in single digits - usually not even in high single digits. In fact, he is usually well below where Kerry was.

Edwards is polling at around 11 to 12%, which puts his pretty far ahead of any second tier candidate. The biggest warning signal is that he did not gain appreciably after his splashy introduction, in spite of people like Paul Krugman really praising his emphasis on the economy and his health care plan. Also in the August - October time frame, when he did get lots of good press, he was not able to gain vs Kerry who rarely got good press and who was at the same level.

I suspect the media is bored with John Edwards - Obama!!!! is the new John Edwards. My biggest concern is that media persists in crowning then dethroning each candidate.

I share your, Mass's and the blogs concern that we never get to the ideas. Then after the fact, the media that wasted the nation's brain cells on the game and trivia, will complain that the loser didn't have a message. This is asinine as any one running for President will have a platform and a message - even if someone wrote it for them (as was likely the case for W)

[ProSense]

4. In summary,

that's why the DNC, Democratic Party and surrogates should have launched a full frontal on the Swift Liars to end the media fixation. The charge that Kerry should have responded with more frequency and urgency, given the amount of energy his campaign invested in doing so, speaks volumes about the present situation. No candidate should have to spend that much time responding to vicious lies. Kerry was supposed to be campaigning for president, spending his energy getting the message out, not waging war with wingnuts.

[Noisy Democrat]

6. You just said it better than anyone

No candidate should have to spend that much time responding to vicious lies. Kerry was supposed to be campaigning for president, spending his energy getting the message out, not waging war with wingnuts.

That's the best, clearest explanation I've ever seen. I wish that could be pasted all over Kos and everywhere else where people whine that Kerry didn't do enough.

[sandnsea]

5. This is why we have to get involved

Hell I don't care if we split the candidates up and just assign them. I think if people like us don't keep the issues in the forefront, nobody else will. Choose a candidate blog and/or local campaign, keep pegging away at them, make them address the tough questions.