Is Edwards really being ignored?

I honestly don't think so....Edwards isn't a new candidate on the scene. The people know him and his support just fell short in the early days. He didn't capture the votes early on that people expected and his campaign just didn't catch fire like hoped for....I don't think he is being disenfranchised....He just isn't it this time around......

Since the MSM is more interested in covering stories about two candidates sparring over bullshit there's nothing for them to ask JE about since neither BO or HRC have any reason to engage Edwards.

...but you didn't hear about it in the US media. More time was given to third-place Hillary.

Yes, Edwards is really being ignored...

just how much Edwards is being ignored.

The difference between Clinton/Obama coverage and Edwards' coverage was shocking.

Ask yourself this: why is the media still covering most of the GOP nominees, but they have pared the Dems down to just 2?

dont want the people to know

They talked about Giuliani and Huckabee more than they did about Edwards. It's as is he doesn't exist. Did Barack snub Hillary? Wasn't that a great moment when the Kennedys supported Oback? Was Bush's speech a McCain speech or a Romney speech? Blah blah blah.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist -- But there is absolutely no doubt that Edwards was pushed to the sidelines by the MSM. They created a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course they haven't been able to pretend he doesn't exist, like they did with Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich.

But from the very start this was cast as Hillary's nomination, with Obama as the only likely real challenger.

As the race narrowed down, the avoidance of Edwards became more and more obvious. Even though he finished 2nd in Iowa, the media covered NH as though it was just a race between Obama and Third-place finisher Hillary.

Occasionally Edwards would get a littler pat on the head from the pundits, or an occasionaly brief interview. But all of the panel discussions and news reports focused almost exclusively on Obama and Hillary -- often not even mentioning that it was still a three-way race.

its not a conspiracy the other campaigns have historical aspects that are hard to overcome. The certainly should have given him more exposure after Iowa but a certain amount of the responsiblity with how much exposure you get rests with the campaign. John seemed to be giving the exact same stump speech virtually word for word. It seemed to me that the campaign was a lot smarter about getting exposure at the begining of the campaign in New Orleans, etc.

to concentrate on the Obama-Clinton fight in NH?

For example, look at the graphs posted here, covering the media's mentions of Edwards vs Clinton vs Obama just after the Iowa caucuses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2642431

treatment given that his rise in politics is due to media hype to begin with.