Another Boston Globe letter: Edwards Coverage or lack thereof.

To the Editor, again;

It distresses me to once again read the morning Globe and find hardly a word about John Edwards and his very viable campaign. What is the reasoning behind your lack of coverage? Is it because his policies may somehow run afoul of your bottom line?

I cannot believe it is for any other reason that the Media continues to avoid Edwards as though he will bring a plague with him to the White House.

I am very close to canceling my subscription to the Boston Globe. The only reason I have not done so before now is that I keep hoping you will see that he is of more importance to us than you recognize. He is the only hope we have to bring us through the disaster that has been these last 7 years.

Please rethink your approach to his campaign. Your readers deserve fair coverage, John Edwards deserves to have his message heard.

Name
Town

To DU'ers: Do your letters of this "where is your Edwards coverage" type ever get published? Is your local newspaper doing any Edwards campaign coverage?

Whereby the MSM has set the bar really low for only one candidate and sets him up as the poster child, that lacks the experience, that waffles on the issues, that does not lead but rather reacts, that tickles ears with oration ability behind which is merely paper and not accomplishments.

John Edwards has been consistent on his message, as he was last night, and has never even once waffled. John Edwards is tremendously more presidential than the poster child, and has never once attempt to personally demean the others. When the poster child came out with the pomp regarding (paraphrasing) the woman, the black man, and big hesitation, long pause, deep breath, John - - it revealed the poster child's deep seeded problems. Those problems are huge, dark, and being ignored by the MSM. The 2000 redo.

:kick:

Edwards is not viable. He is toast. He has as much chance at getting the nomination as Kucinich or Gravel.