Saturday, January 5, 2008
I haven't really gotten behind anybody for the Democratic nomination this cycle. To say the choices have been uninspiring (despite Obama's nearly constant eloquence) is an understatement. Like many Americans, I find the Democratic field just doesn't move me much, in part because the election process has been so corrupted and compromised, and in part because of the criminal inability of the Democratic Congressional "Leadership" to advocate for and push and fight for legislation to protect and defend the Constitution in the interests of the People of the United States of America.
If Congress can't do it and won't, why should we expect any Democratic President to do more? What is there in any of these candidates that would lead me to believe that they would steamroll over Republican obstructionism, that they would bitchslap and jail corporate lobbyists and corruptors, that they would bring the Busheviks to justice, that they would use all those Autocratic Powers the Congress has yielded to the Presidency for the Good of the People?
In the post Iowa Caucus analysis presented by the mass media, there was practically no mention of the man who came in a strong second to Barak Obama: John Edwards. Throughout the campaign, Edwards has been largely absent from media coverage, except when the media mavens could find an "angle," such as his wife's cancer treatment, to beat him over the head with (cf: Katie Couric's patronizing and hostile interview). Nearly all the analysis focused on the "fight" between Obama and Hillary, and any mention of Edwards was in passing.
Then, as I posted day before yesterday, Political Experts were reported (on NPR) as saying that the Edwards campaign was not long for this world, indeed was expected to fold shortly. Money is the issue, and according to the Experts, Edwards doesn't have any left.
There was no back up, no named Expert, no substantiation to this report, and I couldn't find anything on the news summaries I was looking at to support any such conclusion. Of course, throughout the campaign, there was an underlying media (and Establishmentarian) contempt for Edwards. No Democratic Populist had received anything but contempt from mainstream American media for generations. In my view, Edwards is a very muted Populist, but even that is enough to earn a candidate emnity from the corporate sector. Viz: Huckabee's backhanded media evisceration.
Populists can't get a break.
Populism, especially Southern Populism, has a rough-edged reputation in this country that needs to be highlighted and discussed, and the merits of the policies and programs proposed by Populist candidates of both parties need to be heard and considered, but that's not happening in the mass media. Instead, Huckabee and Edwards are being shown the door by their Media Betters.
There isn't much better coverage of the Populist candidates in the alternative media, either -- except that their mistreatment by the Big Media is subject to discussion in the alternative media, whereas the existence of John Edwards (especially) is barely mentioned in the Big Media. Huckabee can be mentioned, and even flattered to an extent (he is a Republican, after all, and Big Media has a cultural necessity to suck up to Republicans), but his actual policy prescriptions (like those of Ron Paul, who isn't considered a Real Republican) cannot be revealed in Polite Company.
The Edwards campaign on the other hand is simply set aside as if it were irrelevant.
The Media Conversation is between Obama and Hillary.
Elizabeth Edwards is left to battle it out with Media Harpies like the Coultergeist and Tweety.
Yet Edwards himself may be the most Progressive of the top Democratic candidates. The question is whether it is possible for any Populist/Progressive Presidential candidate to break through the Palace barricades.