2008 Woodie Awards
Frontrunners outshine Edwards
Darren Staley, Staff Writer
Issue date: 1/30/08Section: Editorials and Opinion
Former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee seemed like a very strong candidate for our next President. He did all the right things specially his refusal to accept lobbyist or PAC money,and said all the right things. His populist, anti-poverty speeches drew rave reviews. As the primary season ran on, however, things began to change.
Edwards was easily the most pro-labor candidate. He lobbied the group heavily and marched on picket lines across the country. Even so, the major unions refused to endorse a single candidate, allowing individual locals to choose for themselves, and many went to the Obama or Clinton camps.
Most analysts also agreed that Edwards put forth the most comprehensive and effective health care policy. This narrative quickly waned and the new discussion turned to how similar the plans were, basically making it a non-issue.
Edwards lost key Congressional endorsements as well. John Kerry, who put Edwards on the 2004 ticket, sided with Obama. Dennis Kucinich, who was helpful to Edwards that year in Iowa, followed suit. Senator Ted Kennedy has also come out and endorsed Obama.
Some have argued that one reason for Edwards' decline is a lack of attention from the mainstream media. According to a Google News archive, in multi-candidate headlines Clinton was mentioned 99 percent of the time, Obama 90 percent, and Edwards a paltry 15 percent.
Edwards was treated much better by the netroots, winning every (non-scientific) straw poll of the cycle on the left-leaning blog DailyKos.com. Managing Editor Laura Clawson explains in the blog: "People in the netroots tend to have an anti-establishment viewpoint, and Edwards ran a pretty aggressive, anti-establishment campaign."
Does this mean that the mainstream media is somehow pro-establishment or biased against Edwards? Not necessarily.
According to Clawson in the DailyKos: "Edwards certainly hasn't drawn the coverage of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Edwards was easily the most pro-labor candidate. He lobbied the group heavily and marched on picket lines across the country. Even so, the major unions refused to endorse a single candidate, allowing individual locals to choose for themselves, and many went to the Obama or Clinton camps.
Most analysts also agreed that Edwards put forth the most comprehensive and effective health care policy. This narrative quickly waned and the new discussion turned to how similar the plans were, basically making it a non-issue.
Edwards lost key Congressional endorsements as well. John Kerry, who put Edwards on the 2004 ticket, sided with Obama. Dennis Kucinich, who was helpful to Edwards that year in Iowa, followed suit. Senator Ted Kennedy has also come out and endorsed Obama.
Some have argued that one reason for Edwards' decline is a lack of attention from the mainstream media. According to a Google News archive, in multi-candidate headlines Clinton was mentioned 99 percent of the time, Obama 90 percent, and Edwards a paltry 15 percent.
Edwards was treated much better by the netroots, winning every (non-scientific) straw poll of the cycle on the left-leaning blog DailyKos.com. Managing Editor Laura Clawson explains in the blog: "People in the netroots tend to have an anti-establishment viewpoint, and Edwards ran a pretty aggressive, anti-establishment campaign."
Does this mean that the mainstream media is somehow pro-establishment or biased against Edwards? Not necessarily.
According to Clawson in the DailyKos: "Edwards certainly hasn't drawn the coverage of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Be the first to comment on this story