Edwards isn't outshone in the MSM, he's outshone BY the MSM to favor the 2 candidates who, unlike Edwards, are taking lobbyists' tens of millions hand over fist & are therefore 1) controllable, 2)predictable, 3) better resourced to buy ad time/space, 4)far more deeply indebted to The Owners. Edwards, as he correctly states, hasn't taken a dime of corporate lobbyist $$$ for these primaries. How unAmerican can you get ... he doesn't deserve the MSM spotlight, now does he?

Posted by Lit at 01/17/2008

Edwards words on Reagan in response to Obama's invocation of Reagan show how much more progressive Edwards is. I don't understand how the Nation can take Obama seriously as a progressive candidate. You need to reclaim your progressive bona fides and back Edwards. We've only had two primaries and you could have helped Edwards a lot. You are not the Nation I used to know.

Posted by lynninsf at 01/17/2008

Tweety & Co (Softball on MSNBC) and the like want a horse race between a black man and a woman. Edwards' being a southern white male puts him in a disadvantaged position in this year's pundit cycle. Add to that his non-corporatist, non-DLC message and they want him out of the room yesterday.

Folks, if you want a progressive to vote for in November it's Edwards or Kucinich. There are no others. We cannot afford another 4 years of Republican or Republican-lite (DLC Hillary and Obama) Presidency. It's crunch time. Tell Oprah to mind her own business and vote America's interest.

Posted by NoPCZone at 01/17/2008

Edwards is the remaining viable candidate that the 'mainstream' right wing media really fears. When it comes down to it, they know there is a fairly large fraction of the US electorate that will NEVER vote for an African American or a Woman. If we get Obama or Clinton, we will not regain the presidency. Just as there are a large fraction of the electorate who will not vote for a 'Northeast Liberal', these people will absolutely not vote for Hillary or Barack. I know. I've talked to enough of them. This election is too important to give the ignorant, right-wing, Rush L. listeners a reason to vote en masse.

Posted by D1od1o at 01/17/2008

If your poll could also have given Edwards some credibility by listed an option such as, "No, it's not over, Edwards could still win some primaries and gain momentum toward the nomination if Obama and Clinton further damage each other's chances." If John Edwards pulls an upset and wins Nevada, no doubt Chris Matthews et al would immediately ask, "Who does this help, Hillary or Barack?!" When Elizabeth Edwards was on Hardball last week, he told her coldly, in so many words, "Sorry, he's a Southern white male, no pizzaz, why shold I cover him..." Surely The Nation can do better.

Posted by Darkhorse at 01/17/2008

Whoever writes these poll options is either incompetent or determined to be biased. There should have been an option that has Edwards not dropping out, but also not "emerge(ing) as a dark-horse candidate at a brokered convention." I think that it's most likely that he will stay in the race, collect delegates, and see if he can use them to affect the nomination process. Would you folks like me to write the next poll for you...?

Posted by mabel33 at 01/17/2008

I won't vote in this ridiculous poll. It doesn't matter what Edwards' status is. We have 3 leading candidates, all cut from the same Corporatist cloth, regardless of the misinformation and spin they spew. This race has become a glamour/popularity contest. If you listen to ANY of the people interviewed in the caucus/primary states, none can give substantive reasons for why they're voting for the candidate they are.

Posted by jlsolley at 01/18/2008

Well, wuddaya know: The Nation apes the rest of the media and wastes our time discussing the race and not the issues. Well done, y'all.

Posted by barnesgene at 01/18/2008

Talk of a brokered convention is very interesting. I can see the Democratic convention deadlocking after several votes and then the convention turning to drafting one Al Gore for president. There are many who believe the country is best off with Gore vs. McCain; with Gore defeating him in a close election. Whatever happens, I believe that the country will have a Democrat in the white house come January 2009 and none too soon I might add. However I do not think it will be a defeat for the Republicans like Goldwater but the Dem should still win handily.

Posted by bean22 at 01/20/2008

The Republican controlled MSM knows there's still a chance for a Republican to beat a woman or black man due to the makup of their 'base'. That's why we hear little or nothing about Edwards except for how washed up he is. This isn't surprising.

What IS surprising, is that Dems are letting the RNC and the MSM tell us who our candidates are going to be, and now The Nation is going along for the ride with them. This so-called 'poll' is the proof in the pudding. I want my Nation back.

Posted by marckeith at 01/20/2008

I am at a loss to know what is really happening. Is Edwards losing because the MSM wants him to, or is he losing because people in New Hampshire and Nevada don't like his thick Southern accent, or are average people, even in the Democratic party scared of someone who says they want to fight corporations, because many of them work for them? Though I support Edwards (and D. Kucinich), I admit that of the speeches on election night in New Hampshire, I thought that was Obama's was the most confident and moving, certainly more so than Hilary's. That said, I agree with other commentators here that your poll leaves out the important option of Edwards winning Southern states in the primary and changing the whole media juggernaut. And if the Nation isn't giving that option, you know that no one else in the media is...

Posted by nikkivine at 01/20/2008

What is most critical is media reform. If only it were possible to have a Nation delivered to every mail box in America. What a different country this would be. If I were a multibillionaire, that would be my gift to America. / Meanwhile, Edwards has taken on Kucinich's call for media reform. A sign that Edwards' newly adopted message is as unpopular with MSNBC as was Kucinich's. A sign of a candidate on the outs with America's corporate media.

Posted by cyclezealot at 01/21/2008

And how "populist" is Edwards' voting record when he was Senator and had the chance to enact "progressive" change? (see below):

1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)

Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008

Hang in there, John Edwards, you're the only relief left. Some Americans still like a real fighter. Let the 2 corporate-owned performers knock each other out dancing for their master.

Posted by sloper at 01/22/2008

What Mettayya is doing is citing votes that distort Edward's record. The easiest way to slam a candidate is to list the votes he made against bills that were either too radical or that had added to them earmarks that were totally unacceptable to the Senator or Congressman. And of course, never mentioning that he voted the opposite way on a revised version of the bill once it became acceptable to him or her.

Mettayya is an Obama supporter and what he will never admit is that rather than race working against Obama, the simple fact is that if he were not Black, he would not even be there. No white semator with so little experience would ever be considered a viable candidate for president. Of course no one would ever be so politically incorrect as to ever say such a thing publicly.

One might say the same thing about Hillary. That if she was not a woman, she would probably not be up on that stage either. But at least she was a re-elected Senator and considered one of the better Senators by those who know about such things.

I would like to hear John Edwards defend his votes when he was in the senate and see a list of the progressive votes he did make that Mettayya conveniently left out of his submission. .

Posted by bean22 at 01/22/2008

BEAN 22: "No white semator with so little experience would ever be considered a viable candidate for president."

"so little experience" ... rather like Lincoln? Or was Lincoln a candidate only because he had a way with words. Abe had been a corporate lawyer (railroad clients et al) most of his career. Obama has more legislative experience. And that way with words.

Shuck & jive?

No.

When JFK was Obama's age, he'd been dead for a year.

Posted by sloper at 01/23/2008

Oh my error. I forgot about Lincoln. And I forgot how in the 1800s party bosses picked their candidates in smoke filled back rooms. I thought we were talking about the 21st century with caucuses and primaries and TV debates and polls, polls, polls!! Lincoln? Lincoln is my hero. Our greatest president. But in the 21st century, Lincoln probably wouldn't get elected to the Illinois state legislature.

Posted by bean22 at 01/23/2008