John Edwards deserves more attention. Surely it’s time for the national news media to take a break from the nearly exclusive obsession with his leading Democratic presidential rivals, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Iowa Democrats are not ignoring Edwards. The former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee is the most popular candidate among his party’s likely voters in the Hawkeye State. According to a new MSNBC/McClatchy survey, Edwards enjoys a 69 percent favorability rating among Iowa Democrats -- besting Obama’s 66 percent and Clinton’s 62 percent. (Bill Clinton’s favorability is at 72 percent.)
Despite getting lost in the Clinton-Obama fray, Edwards remains competitive enough in Iowa to emerge victorious in the Jan. 3 caucuses. His organization for the all-important task of getting voters to the caucuses might even surpass Obama's or Clinton's.
Although the longest running candidate (if you count his 2004 bid), Edwards gets so little attention that he might seem like the fresh face in the field if an Iowa win produces a media boom.

Comments
Timely Craig- on c-span this morning they were besieged with Edwards supporters in Iowa.
Here in NH I see no one breaking for Hillary- everyone wants the best person and are still sorting it out. Things are very fluid and scrambling- and no one is desperate to look at things due to the timing of the holidays- but the first week of January will be nuts!
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 1:13 PM
Kathy, are you seeing the TV ads in new hamp? Curious whether any are breaking thru. When I was up there a couple weeks ago didn't think any of them especially noteworthy. Most interested in whether any go on the attack, so far they've been quite tame.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 1:25 PM
After much soul searching...... I have come to the conclusion that we are seeing the last of the Iowa/NH brouhaha......
A few months ago, I stated that because of all the jockeying with primaries and caucuses in other states, the 2 early states.... IA & NH.... would have an even more prominent importance in the 08 elections than in the past...... I now realize that was wishful thinking on my part and somewhat territorial because of living in NH......
I now think the exact opposite..... unless there's a total surprise..... like Hillary coming in 5th or someone like Biden or Richardson coming in first the IA/NH thing isn't going to mean much.....
all those big states haven't changed their dates, and in some cases, forgone their Democratic delegates, just because.....
I think they are sick and tired of the likes of Iowans and NHerites picking the candidates..... they want a piece of the action and they mean to get it.....
I think name recognition and $$$$$$ is going to mean everything...... the candidates with the most moolah will blanket the likes of California and Texas with campaign ads...... and whether we like it or not..... advertising works.....
just my thoughts.....
and as always.... I reserve the right to be wrong..... :0)
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Hey Craig-
The ad buys are coming on stronger- as a dem I notice the heavy rotation of Edwards, Obama and Hillary-none on the attack. Obama is mostly the JJ dinner excerpt. McCain and of coure Romney and Rudi- all pretty much " I am a strong good guy " kind of ads.
We are getting mailers several days a week form the major 3. As much of a junkie I am, they go in the trash.
The only attack ad so far, is on my local am station interestingly enough from the Log Cabin Repubs, really slamming Romney for his flip flops- and not on gay issues. It is actually kind of fun to see the flip flop label used so effectively on a republican.
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 1:33 PM
Thanks Kathy, pls keep us posted on anything new and different. And Zoey, what's the TV look like in Iowa? Somethin to do while your ankle mends, will be curious to see if they keep the ads going during christmas.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 1:36 PM
your analysis could be spot on, rebellious. that is surely what rudy and hillary are hoping to see. as flawed as the IA-NH routine might be, i do like the idea of early states as screening committees. the perfect world in my book would be that every four years a different state gets to go first -- that way each state gets a chance every 200 years.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 1:39 PM
RR, I agree that advertising works but I hate to think we will get to the place where only the well-funded candidate who peddles their wares to the masses like the hottest holiday toy, will be our nominee. I kind of like the idea of real people questioning the candidates about their positions. At least then there is a chance picking our nominee will be more than a popularity contest.
However, that being said, the media loves it to be a popularity contest since they don't have to think or do any investigative reporting about the candidates and their issues. I know, why don't we just say the richest person in the party who wants to be president can run against the richest person in any other party who wants to be president. That would sure save time and money with about the same result.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 1:44 PM
and by the way, here's my pet peeve about New Hampshire -- price gouging. It's unbelievable how much they jack up hotel and rental car rates for the primary week. The Radisson in downtown Manchester told me i could have a room for $1,000 per night! Iowa doesn't do this, but NH always has. It's disgusting
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 1:53 PM
An earlier post criticized Michelle Obama- I had only seen her give one speech on c-span to a NY womens group and though it was good- mostly about the issues facing working women.
Last week I saw her at our local college. There was a small pre-event. At it she made a statement about what his cabinet would be like, She said matter of factly, Barack likes smart people and likes to be around them. I said in my question first how pathetic it was that the bar was we may have a president who wants to be around smart people- which was met by applause though I did not mean it to be!
Also my first impression is that she is very tall and very slender-
I found her to be receptive and charming, and the speech she gave was motivating. She spoke about being the daughter of a fireman on the SS of Chicago, and how she and Barack were only 2 years out of paying off their students loans (and they borrowed every year)- and that was only because his books sold.
The overall mood she imparted, was that American can be a great country, but its people have fallen behind. Families are struggling at every level - hard working people can barely get by and her family (blue collar with a mom at home) could not get by today. That people just want to be able to provide for their children and are nervous that they cannot.
One thing she said- that she wants her children to be able to travel abroad without fear due to being American struck a nerve with me as having kids the same ages, I have thought the same thing.
She did not go into policies and promises, but more about Barack's background and who he was as a man.
I realized that the only comments I have really seen so far about Michelle have been filterrd down to a 10 second snippet on Hardball followed by a Matthews sneer of dislike. I found her to be likeable - a real person- and very committed to her husband and the future-
just thought I would share.
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 1:57 PM
Craig,
Edwards's new ad is in heavy rotation. I like it since it is the old (pre-Trippi) type positive, stare you in the face ad to try to make you feel like there is a better world at our finger tips.I have never been a fan of Joe Trippi and I think he made Edwards look angry just like he made Dean look angry. Some long-time supporters went elsewhere because they didn't like the anger and I don't know if he can get them back.
Two positive ads running for Hillary. Wes Clark and AFSCME. They are in such heavy rotation I feel like Wes is right here with me =:0 Obama JJ Dinner speech running too. I didn't like it the first time I heard it and it doesn't do anything for me as a commercial either. I am not seeing any other candidater ads right now. I wonder if the money is drying up? It will be interesting to see how they handle advertising during the holidays.
If you let other states go first in the nominating process, how do you get their citizens involved in researching the issues to question the candidates or do you just end up with candidates making personal appearances but still resulting in a popularity contest?
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 1:57 PM
Zoey-
Joe Trippi!! As Dean person last time, when I heard that Edwards (who was emerging as my first choice) hired him I gulped and cringed. Trippi's record is not good- and the angry Edwards has subsided and I have heard the same things you have about former supporters.
People are still open to him- most will go to who has the momentum at the last moment.
By the way, I put Trippi in the same category as Bob Shrum- records of failure.
Posted by: kathy | December 10, 2007 2:01 PM
Kathy,
I am glad your Michelle Obama experience was favorable. I did not have the same experience when she appeared at our county women's event last Summer. I thought she came off as very aloof and tended to hang more with the rich female attorneys and not with us common folks.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 2:03 PM
Kathy,
I think I saw Trippi and Schrum on Hardball together once. A true team of losers.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 2:04 PM
zoey,
Thanks for the info on the compressed schedule. I think you're right. Seems that the only ones it benefits are those with the name recognition.
Renee,
I hope that you are wrong that the candidates with all the money and name recognition have it wrapped up.
Craig,
I too like the early states being committees. But I'd be concerned about very populous states being first, where there'd be more advertising and less retail politics.
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 2:06 PM
Ok, I said: "I too like the early states being committees"
I meant "screening committees." I really need the edit function.
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM
Zoey-
Are you very involved in democratic politics?
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM
thanks for the Iowa report Zoey -- very cool how we have so many eyes and ears in battleground states -- let's make you guys Primary Watchers like the weather watchers on local news. Who all do we have in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina?
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 2:10 PM
the edit function has to be added as a plug-in and those can create side issues, so CQ staff carefully researching best way to go with that. in the meantime (and i know i've said this before) use the Preview button!
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 2:13 PM
ps. Renee,
Your Pats could-go-all-the-way.
Broncos won big yesterday, 41-7 against the Chiefs, but they're playing Thursday on the NFL network so no one will see them.
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 2:13 PM
Kathy,
Yes, I am very involved in Democratic politics now. Strange as it may sound, I credit Wes Clark for calling me to serve the party any way I can. I started volunteering for committees, events, and got elected to county central committee. From that I found a group of people I really like to be around. We don't always agree on everything but we all work to further the party's goals and objectives.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 2:21 PM
Craig,
With regards, to New Hampshire ad buys, don't forget that Massachusetts is starting to see an uptick in activity since their stations are all easily picked up in at least half the state.
As for the price gouging, how else do you think a state that doesn't tax it's own citizens will make money? Gouge the out of towners that are clogging up their roads, takings up seats at their favorite restaruants etc...
BTW, if you didn't mind the 20 minute drive, I would suggest looking down in Merrimack or even away from the downtown area of Manchester... Or you could complain to the National office of said hotel and remind them that they don't charge that much for rooms during the super bowl or mardi gras...
Posted by: Bear
| December 10, 2007 2:40 PM
"the perfect world in my book would be that every four years a different state gets to go first "
Just to be slightly more serious than every bicentennial, I always thought dividing the country into four to six geographic divisions with four to six primary dates and alternate which group goes first. That way their turn would come around every 16 to 24 years, you would have much more diversity, and the candidates could concentrate on a cohesive geographic region.
Posted by: Jamie | December 10, 2007 2:50 PM
Jamie,
"Just to be slightly more serious than every bicentennial, I always thought dividing the country into four to six geographic divisions with four to six primary dates and alternate which group goes first."
With all due respect, trying to fix the primary system is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Instant runoff voting is the simple solution to the problem.
Ok, ok, I won't harp on instant runoff voting again. For at least three or four hours...
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 2:58 PM
The Chiefs have given up on the season. Just thought I would remind people of that.
Posted by: Corey
| December 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Starting to see alot of Rommey ads, and a really stupid one from Guilani about the Iranians releasing hostages right before Regan's inaguration. More articles about Huckabee's political history are showing up. In NH WMUR is the statewide "local" station, but alot of the media buys on radio & TV are Boston stations since they are carried on all cable programming.
I get the sense that McCain is regaining ground in NH. With more exposure of the rest of the republicans, people aren't really impressed with the field.
Overall people are more interested in the Patriots mauling of their opponents that which republican is going to be tougher on those Islamofacistcommieterrorpunks.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| December 10, 2007 3:04 PM
and criminalaliens (add to last post)
Posted by: Bowmanc
| December 10, 2007 3:07 PM
ah, Craig.....
Bear is correct about how this state makes it's money...... that'll be 81/2% tax on that $1,000 room..... and isn't the fact that NH would lose so much money the thing you hear about the most if we lose our first in the nation status.......
BTW.... I agree 100%..... it's disgusting!
Lots of good thoughts on this blog of what to do next..... cuz it's obvious that our current system of how each party chooses it's candidate is broken.... it'll be interesting to see what happens for the 2012 election.....
dnd.... I'll be watching your Broncos this Thursday..... if there's a football game on..... I'm usually watching it......
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 10, 2007 3:14 PM
I think organized labor had made a mistake not being organized for Edwards. I know blah blah blah Dean but it turns out they were right.
And really what have they got to lose. Clinton's alleged threat about being there from the start...what is Clinton going to do tell them to go home for the general?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 3:14 PM
Is Craig gonna come out with some "AnkleStrong" bracelets a la Stephen Colbert?
Posted by: Corey
| December 10, 2007 3:17 PM
I saw a Huckabee ad this morning a couple of times but didn't see any other Republican ads on the local news. I watch satellite during the day so only know who's advertising on morning, evening, and night news, as well as a few primetime shows sometimes. I wish I could stomach daytime network to tell you all who is advertising during the soaps, Oprah, Ellen, etc.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 3:26 PM
Who's not looking? He's met every Iowan twice, is on with Matthews tonight, and I saw him on one show or the other last week (I think it was Tucker with Schuster as guest host). Yeah, the big 3 could give him more exposure, but as they say, sex sells (Yeah, I know, nothing sexy about Obama/HIllary lobbing barbs at each other, but you get the drift). If he wants attention, he's got to get into the scuffle or the newsies will continue to ignore him unless he wins IA, of course, and then he won't be able to beat them off with a stick. My advice, starat attacking Giuliani,or maybe Huckabee, as if both of you have already locked up the nomination. IOW, make noise.
Posted by: pogo
| December 10, 2007 3:46 PM
renee, NH is positively bush league when it comes to taxing hotel rooms - In Seattle last week, $41 tax on $247 room, and none of that is sales tax.
Posted by: pogo
| December 10, 2007 3:56 PM
Craig, Stephanie is still on terrestrial radio - no longer carried on Sirius Left. (Dammit).
Posted by: pogo
| December 10, 2007 3:58 PM
thanks pogo, didn't know what was going on with stephanie -- here is url for her station locator:
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/dynamicpage.php?PageId=87&PageSubId=
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 10, 2007 4:02 PM
Pogo....
it is true that on a whole..... NH collects a lot less in taxes than most states....
but that's because we basically have a citizen legislature...... not too many professional politicians to suck at the tax tit......
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 10, 2007 4:04 PM
Craig,
"just got booked for stephanie miller show tomorrow morning 930am tomorrow. did somebody here say she was canceled?"
Nuh-uh. Still on the air. But be prepared to answer questions as to why you aren't covering her and CC Goldwater's run for the presidency.
http://goldwatermiller08.com/
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 4:05 PM
Craig, there is civilaziation beyond Manchester. You don't have to stay right there.
http://www.metrotravelguide.com/hotelinfo/nashua/nh/usa/97236/#visited=true&cityID=984
Posted by: Bowmanc
| December 10, 2007 4:08 PM
You can also listen to Stephanie Miller on
http://stephaniemiller.com/
or my preferred link:
http://www.am1090seattle.com/
Thanks to Jamie for the Seattle link.
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 4:09 PM
John Dickerson reports from he Iowa campaigns:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179582/fr/flyout#West
Posted by: Dexter
| December 10, 2007 4:10 PM
Craig,
"the meda is just a big dumb thing drawn to light and noise."
There you go again. Attacking the Messenger. ;-)
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 4:17 PM
"...big dumb thing drawn to light and noise"
Interesting topic on radio 2day:
Should the media suppress all the details about mall shooters, church shooters, who clearly want to just be famous for a day?
...and SWAT-squad -like-security at CHURCHES? WWJD?
I heard the female security guard, armed with assault rifle, had been stationed there after the missionary training center shooting (Colorado Springs)...cuz the two were connected...in other words, the church leaders suspected trouble, but still held the service where two more were shot and killed, and 6 wounded, total.
SWAT squad-like security in churches...where next?
Posted by: Dexter
| December 10, 2007 4:20 PM
For $1,000/night, I'd want the manager to rock me to sleep.
HOORAY!! EDWARDS!!! I still say.
Cowboys won the East. Interesting but the Mavs are in the West.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 4:22 PM
For a slight change of pace,
"Gore Urges Bold Moves in Nobel Speech"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/world/11nobel.html?em&ex=1197435600&en=e2fa117e176a1da1&ei=5087%0A
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
It's not what you think:
"Fight for Fukudome on deck"
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/687987,CST-SPT-deluca09.article
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 4:27 PM
Stephanie was apparently removed from Serius Left, but she is going strong in syndication on standard radios.
Posted by: Jamie | December 10, 2007 4:38 PM
Dex,
What you heard on the radio today w.r.t. the Springs church shooting was completely false. Here's the poop:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7683781
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 4:39 PM
MMMM Blue Bunny ice cream. CNN is in Le Mars, Iowa.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 4:42 PM
tt,
the cowboys have been in existence since 1960. The Mavs since 1980. Different leagues.
yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: horsedooty | December 10, 2007 4:44 PM
Dex,
ps. People who've lived in Colorado for a long time refer to Colorado Springs as "the Springs." Even though there are a lot of "springs" towns in Colorado (e.g., Steamboat Springs, Hot Sulfur Springs, Manitou Springs), Colorado Springs, about 50 miles south of Denver is "the Springs."
Posted by: dnd | December 10, 2007 4:45 PM
Well, as always, it's been fun. Now off to pick up Little P and head home to settle in.
Posted by: pogo
| December 10, 2007 4:49 PM
Finally Craig will be on a show at a morning hour that makes sense from the west coast. Stephanie likes Craig, "He's Chuckly".
Posted by: Jamie | December 10, 2007 4:56 PM
Craig,
We shouldn't feel too bad (or old) because of our respective ankle issues. Eric Hanson, reporter for CBS affiliate channel 8, fell on the ice last Thursday and broke his hip. I don't know if you have met him but he has been around the political events this year. He is young, tall, and thin, with red hair. I don't even think he is 30 years old yet.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 5:05 PM
horse, but they're in the same location, town. It's just odd, IMHO.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 5:09 PM
"He's Chuckly".
LMAO!
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 5:11 PM
zoey, I Googled with Images, Eric Hanson.
Whoa!
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 5:12 PM
Eric Hanson CBS in Images gives a different, picture, so to speak. Still can't tell who he is though.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 10, 2007 5:18 PM
tt,
The one on the lower right...KCCI news or you can google eric hanson des moines and you will get a link with his bio and picture.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 5:24 PM
Edwards is getting more attention up here in NH. Washington Post article:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/08/edwards_condemns_nafta.html
Edwards Condemns NAFTA, Discounts Celebrity Campaigners
Even quotes my brother in law a democratic activist supporter of Edwards
"One Edwards supporter at the Concord event, local Democratic activist Jon Bresler, surveyed the crowd and said it seemed to be more blue-collar than the voters Edwards drew in the primary four years ago, suggesting that there is an audience in New Hampshire for his populist appeal. "There's not a person in there with a shirt that cost more than $12," Bresler said. "They're here for health care, for education, for getting out of Iraq. This is blue-collar New Hampshire, and they're responding to his message."
Posted by: Bowmanc
| December 10, 2007 5:41 PM
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, December 10, 2007
http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/
Posted by: Dexter
| December 10, 2007 6:13 PM
oy vey hillary haters are ridiculous
and if the are going to write about fashion issues\
where is the discussion about Oprah's extremely poor fitting attire for her Iowa appearances.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 6:19 PM
dnd..OK, she was a volunteer security guard. But was she always there, or was this a special security gig cuz the church had been warned of possible trouble? Was the church (referred to on the radio as "Haggard's church) affiliated with the missionary training center where 13.5 hours earlier a shooter opened fire?
One thing seems certain: she was ready to kill and she was no
"Barney Fife" with one bullet at the ready in her front blouse pocket..
This is very odd...I cannot recall anything like it...a volunteer security guard, male or female make no difference...who more than likely never killed anyone in a church, calmly walks directly towards the shooter and wastes him with 12 shots fired.
Was she an off-duty cop?
Posted by: Dexter
| December 10, 2007 6:27 PM
Dog
yes.
dnd
she has some law enforcement background whether she is in law enforcement now is not clear.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 6:40 PM
Gee Tweety last week Obama was ahead in Iowa
so she had moved back into the lead...not hanging on..
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 7:02 PM
Tweety just said Edwards is doa
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 7:04 PM
tweety is crazy he thinks Biden has a better chance of getting the nomination than Edwards
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 7:47 PM
Bowmanc,
Jon Bresler- the guy quoted in the WaPo article, posted this diary on BlueHampshire, which was a great one. Really gets at a Clinton vulnerability-
http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2401
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 7:51 PM
KGC,
Tweety has become irrelevant. I don't watch him anymore. You deserve an award for sitting thru his drival. I watch BBC WorldNews instead.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 8:06 PM
tweety's frothing obsessive and mostly irrational hatred of both the Clintons twists everything into an assault on her.
Last week was much worse for Romney and Giuliani then Clinton.
I heard an excellent rumor Rachael Maddow may replace Tucker.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 8:15 PM
KGC,
I hope your rumor is correct...now if we could get Tweety replaced I could go back to watching more than KO on MSNBC. Tweety has lost all sense of reality.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 8:23 PM
Romney's new ad in Iowa attacks Hucksterbee for being soft on immigration. The Huckster is giving people 90 days to get out of dodge or be deported.
Is Romney planning on rounding people up the day after he gets elected?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 8:29 PM
"I am excited that this has become a race rather than coronation."
I am saddened that you think this. The press has made you believe this....and I say this as someone who first worked in the press in 1967.
Posted by: Patsi | December 10, 2007 8:31 PM
Evening news political commercial report: Edwards, Hiilary AFSCME, Huckster, Hillary Clark, Mitt, Obama. Obama and Mitt are speechifying, the rest are "speaking direct to the viewer" positive commercials.
I got snail mail from Vilsack for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. I received email from Biden inviting me to an event and 2 phone calls from the Edwards campaign inviting me to the Tim Robbins event but there is still an hour or so time left for someone else to call.
Posted by: zoey
| December 10, 2007 8:33 PM
Patsi-
Do you think that the press made people believe Hillary was the clear front runner and perhaps even inevitable a month ago, or was she that free of the press influence, or was she not that at all?
Posted by: Kathy | December 10, 2007 8:55 PM
Loved the bit about Dana not having a clue re Cuban Missle Crisis. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. Stephanie refers to her as "The Lying Sack of Cute".
Posted by: Jamie | December 10, 2007 8:56 PM
Kathy,
That was an interesting link to Blue Hampshire, I remember when Jon met with Clinton, it was a pretty big deal. But his company couldn't compete with all the dirt cheap imports. And we see the same thing happening with the paper mills up here. Going, Going, gone. I expect that southern NH is buffered somewhat because there is more high tech work available , plus in Nashua there is BAE which is a big defense contractor. I do think that the independent voters will be trending more democratic this year.
WMUR just had a series of "breakfasts with the candidates" on. Unfortunately I had a phone call so I didn't get to hear Biden, Richardson or Edwards, but at least they were getting some airtime of conversations with regular citizens.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| December 10, 2007 9:02 PM
I think the media used the national polls to justify pimping Rudee. The national polls rely on name id and not much else.
The state polls have always been much closer and the early states not friendly to rudee and that wrecks the media's narrative that rudee can win.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 9:03 PM
Bowmanc: I caught a bit of the WMUR's breakfasts. Pretty boring stuff I thought, I doubt anyone learned anything that 30 seconds and Google couldn't have told them, no policy stuff just background, in short, it appeared to be one of those 'you had to be there for it to be interesting' deals. But I did learn that Edwards is a Red Sox fan..who knew
I talked with lots of folks this weekend looks like those R's will be voting for McCain or Paul. The D's were a toss up between Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson. Obama gathered a lot of favorable responses from which I inferred that people may not think he is ready yet. The independent/moderates have mostly decided on who they will not be voting for(and it's not good for the Rs).
I wasn't really paying attention but I only noticed three signs in my 30 mile round trip. 1 Richardson, 1 Clinton and 1 Edwards.
Posted by: ran | December 10, 2007 9:43 PM
Recognizing that I am in the minority here, I like old Tweety. I don’t always agree with Matthews, but then I find little value in watching only those with whom I totally agree on every issue.
It is debatable if he is consistently even-handed, but I have not seen anyone else on TV who will badger politicians and pundits with follow-up questions the way that he does. Other interviewers, in the interest of looking non-partisan, will let any and all politicians and pundits spin out of the tough questions.
Tweety gets slammed in both the left and right-leaning blogs; that ought to tell you something.
Posted by: MadMustard
| December 10, 2007 9:49 PM
"Tweety gets slammed in both the left and right-leaning blogs; that ought to tell you something" mad
yes he is incompetent and a random comment generator.
first post oprah polls
For all the hype and attention she has received, the poll indicates that Oprah Winfrey may not be having much of an impact on moving voters. Just one percent of Democrats said Winfrey's endorsement of Obama would make it more likely to vote for him while 14 percent said it would make it less likely they would support his candidacy and 80 percent said it would make no difference. By contrast, 44 percent said Bill
Clinton's involvement with his wife's campaign would make it more likely for the them to support her, 7 percent said less and 46 percent said it would make no difference.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/ 200...rserace_3603772
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:04 PM
Oprah endorsed him over a year ago. She made him competitive I don't think she can do much more.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:22 PM
the same way we measure all the other things that happen to campaigns --the benchmark polls.
I think the media makes crap up especially about Clinton or they take things out of context to make them worse.
And then harp on small things ...
let me know when the media writes about Obama's pants suits
I predict Obama has peaked.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:28 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801502.html?hpid=topnews
when was the last time
the washingtonpost december 8th
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:37 PM
Mad,
It's good of you to speak up for Mr. Matthews, but I'm not sure he deserves it. I think he takes some comfort in being blasted by both the right and the left, but that's not definitive. I went to a basketball game yesterday, and fans for both teams complained about the referees. That wasn't because the refs were being fair. It was because they were doing a poor job.
Matthews was actually good as a guest on shows like The McLaughlin Group because he is a bright guy. As a host, I can't forgive him for talking over the answers of his guests, and continually asking questions that require a lengthy answer, only to cut off the response because he's up against a commercial break.
I used to think that he was generally fair, but a lousy interviewer, but in reading kgc and others here, I have to agree that he has some serious problem with the Clintons. He is incapable of saying something positive about Hillary without taking some kind of shot at her or her husband.
I avoided most of his show tonight, but I caught his Sunday show. He went way over the top in characterizing Hillary's attack on Obama. I can't remember his exact words, but he either said she was being mean or vicious. She was definitely taking shots at Obama and his lack of experience, but the clip he showed was no where near his description of it.
To close with something positive, I'd say Mr. Matthews is about three times as good as Tucker Carlson. Or, to state that another way, on McLaughlin's scale of one to ten, I'd give Chris a three.
Posted by: EdVB
| December 10, 2007 10:37 PM
"Today on "Hardball," Chris Matthews talked about voting the dream. He used it in reference to Barack Obama. Obviously, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "dream speech" could be the obvious reference. There is also no doubt that Mr. Obama's candidacy is enormously attractive to many primary voters. Fantastic.
But why isn't the first woman to have a chance to be president "voting the dream"? Because she's Hillary Clinton? Because Matthews hates her and judges her candidacy through his jaundiced eyes? To hundreds of thousands of women Clinton represents the dream of a lifetime. Why doesn't that count for Chris?
For that matter, I haven't met one Edwards supporter who doesn't feel his candidacy is "voting the dream." Edwards is by far the most progressive candidate in the field. I detest the way his campaign has been run, while also feeling some of his advisors have handed the "anti Hillary" primary role to Mr. Obama on dereliction of candidate duty default, if you will. But on unions, trade, the war (which should have been the focal point of his candidacy), middle class, health care, nobody can out progressive John Edwards. Yet today on "Hardball" Chris treated him like he had already lost. Some believe that is true. I think his campaign, well, I've said it before, has come off its rails, but the reality is that in Iowa John Edwards is tied in a three-way lead for first. If he'd win Iowa, what could happen?
Yet Matthews writes him off for his preferred candidate, Barack Obama. "
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:43 PM
no one really cared about john edwards haircuts but it is an unfortunately theme the media and pundits refuse to let die.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:52 PM
First you said it was a recent attack so it wasn't relevant
then when I pointed out it was on 12/8 you said who cares
how very gooper of you to move the goal posts.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:53 PM
I think the media does it to marginalize candidates
they used sexist attacks to do it to Clinton and tried to make Edwards effiminate --Breck Girl
it's sexist and misogynist .
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 10, 2007 10:59 PM
MSM, it's NOT the hair. It's what's UNDER it.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 11, 2007 12:48 AM
From Wizbang Blue, Steve Crickmore posting:
"...
(Dana Perino) makes a 'historical comparison' about a landmark historical event that she knew nothing about. In a sense she ably mirrors the president. But forgive me, where does Bush find these people? You really have to look hard to find a university graduate with a minor in political science, who has never heard of 'The Cuban Missile Crisis'. It is no wonder she is a conservative. And this is supposed to be the President's chief spokesperson briefing the whole world about the big issues of the day: missile defense, nuclear war, global warming ..Is someone playing a bad joke on us?"
OK, Dexter here... I can't hold it against Perino for being born 10 years after The Cuban Missile Crisis, but I was born years after World War II and I know quite a bit about it...and we all on the C-List could easily name ALL the conflicts of battle and many crisis-points in the nation's history.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is mentioned frequently on TV shows, if Perino never reads a book.
As Crickmore wrote, "WHERE DOES BUSH FIND THESE PEOPLE?"
This is a real head - shaker to me.
I'd like to see Perino on "Jeopardy", category WWII...
Name the man with the funny moustache who led Germany and died by his own hand ina place called "Eagle's Nest".
Perino: "Duh-uh-uh...Groucho?"
Posted by: Dexter
| December 11, 2007 12:59 AM
Dex, she's like everyone else in this administration.
Clueless.
I think it was Chris Matthews who said tonight that one of the many things this administration is lacking is any historical understanding or knowledge. Soooo true!
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 11, 2007 1:16 AM
TT: It's just amazing that she never heard of it...and now we can assume there's a lot more she has no clue about.
I can just see her watching "Flags of Our Fathers" with her husband:
"Iwo Jima? Was that a real place?"
Harborwoman: I forgot about Journeyman Monday night! And NBC doesn't have it on the web yet! WAAAAAHHHH !
Posted by: Dexter
| December 11, 2007 2:07 AM
National Final Rodeo update. Daughter's friend Jake Rienhart split the second and third. His time tonight was 3.5 seconds and he finally got off the schnide tonight.
yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: horsedooty | December 11, 2007 2:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINjzu5773M
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 4:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlti5SE_9Ro
?
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 4:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwva0w6TJm4
I coulda been a pretendah.......
actually the first time Ive ever seen the pretenders....Im sure they're all very nice kids......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 5:04 AM
that clip was good.....Im poking around for them on youtube a bit......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 5:09 AM
Looks like, from wikipedia entry, that there have been almost as many "Pretenders" as there were "Original Drifters"............
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 5:13 AM
"Do you think that the press made people believe Hillary was the clear front runner and perhaps even inevitable a month ago, or was she that free of the press influence, or was she not that at all?"
The media frames the discussion. The words, phrases, & terms are theirs. Front runner became "coronation" and "inevitible."
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 5:55 AM
media played the scream from Howard Dean....they also showed Dukakis in the Tank......they showed the photo with Kerry and Jane......till the audience thought they all stank......
corporations, corporations, corporations.......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 6:04 AM
I wonder if there are any handpainted signs in the demos' various headquarters reading: "It's the war, stupid...."
there should be.
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 6:35 AM
Mr. Crawford, you are so right. I think it is a shame that on both sides, ALL the candidates do not get more time from the media. The way we treat the No. 3 through? candidates is not very democratic. Whether I agree with them or not is not important; there are millions of people who do agree with each candidate and therefore the candidate deserves more media attention. I'm lucky that my candidate is getting lots of attention, but it is too bad when phrases like """got it all wrapped up," etc. are used by certain talk show analysts and other members of other mediums. As an Iowan, I know one thing: Iowans may tell your pollster one thing but when it comes to the voting booth, we may surprise people, who put far too much emphasis on the Caucus anyway.
Posted by: Clemmieo
| December 11, 2007 9:12 AM
The only people who might want to consider Edwards are uncommitted anti-Hillary people. If one has decided for Obama one should stay there. If one is at a caucus for Dodd or Biden and they fall off the radar screen with less than 15% of the attendees than go to Edwards to attempt to get HER into third place--not THAT would REALLY be something!
Posted by: Davie S. Levine | December 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Kathy's commentary on Michelle Obama points out exactly what is wrong with the Obama campaign. It's too"folksy" too much "obama on Obama" and not enought on issues, policies and programs.
In addition, he is not god at thinking on his feet. Watch the debates closely where he is thrown questions he has no idea are coming. He fails!
One last about Michelle Obama, I have a friend who worked with her at U oif C Hospital in Chicago. She was the nicest person UNTIL he was elected Senator and she was given a salary boost of over $200K, then she became aloof and looked down on people (sounds like Hillary in a way). She can trun the charm on at will and turn it off just as fast.
RWD
Posted by: rightwingdog
| December 11, 2007 11:02 AM
Craig, thanks for finally stating the obvious! Now if we could only get the rest of the media to take notice!
Posted by: Jo Ann | December 11, 2007 11:31 AM
Maybe Edwards should start wearing skirts and showing more cleavage?
Posted by: dude | December 11, 2007 4:32 PM
Edwards can't get more media coverage because the MSM is corporate America, and the corporations are afraid of Edwards and his populist beliefs.
Posted by: Chris | December 11, 2007 6:43 PM
I still keep hoping that when everyone tires of the focus on Obama and Clinton--as if they're the only two out there--that Edwards will rise to the top. He has, for me, developed an RFK kind of aura, in that he's grown and evolved every year since he began his public career, and he comes off pitch perfect to me every time. He really believes in what he's saying--that the world CAN turn itself around--and he has substantive ideas to back up his beliefs. I don't dislike anyone in the field except maybe Hillary, but Edwards continues to ring truer the more I pay attention to him. If only the media would give him some decent coverage already.
Posted by: bevvy | December 12, 2007 1:33 PM
Post A Comment