NBC news doesn't even mention Edwards name

Tonight the lead story was the showdown in Iowa...obviously. John's name was not even mentioned...not once...in the report. It was basically "Sen Obama defeated Sen. Clinton" etc etc.

What is up with that??

all this morning I noticed the same thing.

Ok- it's been like that for months. They are obsessed with the Clintons, for better or worse.

I complained months ago and the reply from folks seemed to be "He has no chance in Iowa...he is a distant third so it is useless covering his campaign". Now he comes in second and I guess the new reason is "He has no chance in NH...he is a distant third so it is useless covering his campaign".

and we the people scare the shit out of them!

Please go donate to John Edwards!!

www.johnedwards.com/donate

show these jerks who is the boss!

fly..volunteer for Edwards in Iowa!

I remember them doing this to Wes Clark, too, after a 2nd place showing (forget the state)

They put them on ignore. . .

It's up to us.

Which is why Edwards worked for so long in Iowa.... and got laughed at for that.

He had to work hard to overcome that stigma from the media, because they don't want to hear what he's saying, and they know they and their rich buddies are in trouble if Edwards connects with voters!!

Clark was my candidate last time...

:shrug:

On Hillary and Obama.

if Hillary wore red and Obama wore blue, it would be a main story "See which two Demcorat candidates don't share the same favorite color!"

then for some reason, Edwards was brought on for just two days. Then it went back to more weeks and weeks of Obama and Hillary.

He's gonna take the lead.

None to Little -

But they talked about the Repug's all the way down to Gewl and Old man Mc-lane

Whether you agree or not, it was thought that Edwards NEEDED to win Iowa for a chance to win the nomination. Not finish a distant 2nd, but a victory. He could have probably spun a close 2nd, but it was a pretty decisive loss for both Clinton and Edwards. With Edwards probably being a non-factor in New Hampshire and Hillary needing a victory in New Hampshire and the fact she was the Iowa favorite, it isn't a surprise Edwards is being pushed aside. Look, there are two big stories here: Obama's bigger than expected victory and Clinton's major stumble. Edwards, sadly, is being pushed aside because he didn't do well enough to make some noise. Had Edwards barely lost to Obama, I think he would be a bigger factor than he currently is. However, right now, he's battling the fact he isn't polling high in New Hampshire and has minimal money to campaign there.

So let me see...the media has been saying for the past 6 months that Edwards was a distant third and really had no chance of winning....and now he comes in second beating one of their favorite candidates and it doesn't deserve a mention? That seems odd.

So he finished a distant 2nd instead of a distant 3rd, where's the story in that? Did he do better than many people thought he did? Possibly, but not by much. Most polls had Edwards within striking distance and then he loses by a wider margin than many thought he would going in. Edwards needed a strong showing in Iowa, not just a marginal 2nd place finish -- oddly enough, he was closer to Clinton in the final poll than he was to Obama. You can't spin that, you can't build momentum off that. There is no story there. For the media, it's all about the big story and the big story right now is that Obama won a pretty decisive caucus, while Clinton bombed. It's unfortunate Edwards is squeezed between the two, but I think everyone knew that would happen had Edwards not finished at least a competitive second. Yeah he barely beat Hillary, but the big story there is not that Edwards finished ahead of her, it's that Clinton, with all the money and so called front runner status, finished 3rd.

Isn't my point. They will not even acknowledge he is a candidate! They went on and on what % each Repug received...ron paul....the mayor...etc. Why not for the Democrats? They basically had two pictures...obama's face in one...and clinton's in the other...with their % earned listed.

But I've been watching MSNBC all day and they've talked about Edwards a lot. They had someone from his campaign on and also had his wife. So it isn't like he's being ignored.

Told him she was tired of him treating them the way he did.. and he was, at times, very disrespectful to her. Said something about yes, they would have to knock someone down in order to get any coverage. In the end, he ended up dissing all over her because JE was a trial lawyer. It was quite sickening, although she got some good licks in. I'm so disgusted with the coverage after last night that I'm just catching bits and pieces. If its about Edwards or Obama, I'll watch, otherwise I'm toasted on it.

His behavior was appalling. She should have gotten up and walked out.

when she should have walked out, or when he said "You've got a great face, but I don't mean to patronize you." He is really obnoxious.

They chose Obama.

The only way Edwards name should come up is how embarassing a loss it was for him, given that he had basically been living in Iowa since 2002, had name recognition from being on a national ticket and coming in second their before.

This vote was a complete rejection of John Edwards as a candidate.

Hello, Sen Clinton lost and they mentioned her about 12 times.

Edwards has been a footnote in this campaign the entire time, because his duplicity has been generally rejected by the voters.

nt

Do we live on the same planet? I guess not...I'm here on earth...where exactly are you?

So if someone doesn't win the media doesn't even mention he was actually in the race? If that is your reality...I want whatever you're smoking...the weekend is here, afterall.

They haven't mentioned that Kucinich or Gravel lost either.

When Edwards drops out, they will mention it, but there isn't much point in talking about how a fringe candidate lost.

Just FYI. The OP said Clinton's name was mentioned and she came in behind Edwards.

Edwards was already a footnote in this presidential race with fringe support.

Just a few points behind the winner. That's no story at all.

:rofl:

At best he is a footnote.

I hope you're eating on dirt floors before we're all through. Your spin is repugnant.

Nothing I stated is "spin", it is actual facts and reason no one is talking about Edwards.

A third place and third rate candidate not winning a state he was expected to lose isn't a story.

The fact that you fell for his "progressive" routine is your own problem. Most people didn't, which is why his pathetic showing and even his poor sport concession speech isn't a story either.

With Edwards it is just good riddance to bad rubbish.

If Edwards doesn't "exist", there is no anti-corporate choice.

Stupid media.

:grr:

This is pretty obvious.

I am shocked

The word "populism" is the big secret word this year. I think they've been threatened with fines if they use the word without equating it with communism....

It will confuse the sheeple.

said he was on the verge of dropping out.

Anything to minimalize him.
It is working.
The masses are asses.

Edwards wasn't even mentioned. They covered Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side - Huckleberry, McCain and Romney on the Republican side.

Interesting how they can cover the "top 3" for the Republicans but can't seem to do the same for the Democrats ....

that interesting...I mean it is weird for us common folk...thats why we need folks like Milo to explain the twisted logic to us.

John Edwards coming in second in Iowa is not really big news. He came in second in 2004 - THAT was big news. largely because it was so unexpected and he seemingly came out of nowhere. But this time around, he came in second after being the VP nominee and campaigning in Iowa for years. Not really much to talk about there.

Obama and Clinton are much bigger stories this time around. Obama, the first African-American to win the Iowa primary won by a large margin with an unprecedented diverse coalition of support - THAT'S a story. Clinton, a former First Lady and for much of the campaign, the presumptive frontrunner, came in third - THAT'S a story. Sandwiched in between these two big, historic stories, Edwards' second-place finish - with a lower percentage of the vote than he had four years ago - just isn't that interesting from a journalistic standpoint.

You're missing my point. They basically listed every other candidate and their % on the repub side. On our side it was just the 1st and 3rd placers mentioned. That doesn't seem odd to you?

It looked like this:

Repubs:
1st
2nd
3rd

Dems:
1st
3rd


HELLO!?

which he won't for some reason...

On last night's Nightline, their disrespect was appalling. Huge props for Obama, then a respectful piece on Hillary ( with generous portions of her speech ), then finally - almost as an afterthought - Terry Moran totally sticking it to John Edwards. Every single question was a load of innuendo and bullsh**. Then he has the gall to end the interview with a pandering " We know that Elizabeth has cancer ... how's she holding up? " with the plain suggestion that wouldn't it be best to stop campaigning now to care for his wife , or some such crap. It was infuriating, and EXACTLY the kind of shit Ted Koppel pulled with Al Gore in that month after the 2000 eledction, while it was still in the courts. Every night was a new smear job ..."Why don't you drop these challenges, for THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!?" Unbelievable how threatened they are by a true progressive ... someone who really WILL implement change, instead of nicely just talk about it.

C'mon Johhny boy ... keep up the good fight! ( I made my first contribution to his campaign last night. )

I LOVE Moyers. I consider him one of America's last real journalist and an American patriot....
But tonight, Moyers did a 20 minute analysis of the Iowa Caucus, and he did NOT mention Edwards name....NOT ONCE!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3956293

Olberman last night....Moyers tonight.
Evil is afoot.
Time to move to the woods and plant a garden.