Although I believe voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire take their early voting status seriously and look at candidates carefully, WHY ON EARTH is the media and everyone else so quick to be calling for candidates to bow out of the race based on results in these two small, non-representative states??  Most of America has not even had a chance to vote yet - does this not bother anyone else??  Isn't it fair and right to have a few more elections before the media, preening in its power, declares that it's time for this candidate or that one to be shown the door??  Here's a radical thought - why don't we actually wait for the conventions to pick nominees?

The media has tried for months, shamelessly and obviously, to make the Democratic race a horserace between Clinton and Obama.  Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich have NEVER gotten anything like fair coverage by the press.  Edwards has always been the best candidate, in terms of both what he's running to accomplish and his electability in the general election.  He has thorough, well-thought out proposals for addressing the most serious problems facing America. He also accurately describes how corporate greed and money-driven politics have stolen the government from ordinary citizens and what we must do to get it back.  Republicans and Independents, when they actually have a chance to hear what he's saying, like what they hear.  

If the media would give Edwards anything like the coverage they have lavished on Obama and Clinton, people could hear his passion, see his character and intelligence, and weigh his proposals fairly.  As it is, the media talks about him, when they talk about him at all, as an afterthought -- someone they have to include in the debates but who hasn't got any kind of real chance of being elected.  

What really bugs me is that the media acts like it has had no role at all in pumping up the celebrity front runners when, in my estimation, it has been shaping this race all along.  I have never been so conscious as during this primary season of the power held by the media to create and change the news by what it chooses to cover and what it chooses to ignore. I have never been so angry about it before, either.  

Edwards will keep fighting.  His supporters, like me, will keep fighting with him. We may just surprise everyone over the long haul, because he really is the best candidate and the one who should be elected President.  Maybe, if given half a chance to see, a majority of Americans will come to that conclusion, too.

Here is a little bit that might interest the general public...  Read and come to your own decision.  I was VERY disappointed after reading this....

http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme-president-mcentee/

If you look at your international reactions, Obama is making an uproar around the world and he hasn't occupied the oval office as yet.  I don't think ANY president in the history of this country has EVER had such significant global impact!  He is changing things ALREADY!!!  Berlin, Germany is already for Obama in 2008!  I don't think ANY of the other candidates could make that sort of positive impression.  That speaks a lot when it comes to international affairs!

Integrity, fortitude, vision and compassion are most needed for constructive change in our world.  While I can't vote, I do pay attention and pray that the voters to evaluate what they are being told against the ability of those to deliver.

Talk is cheap, but action gets the job done.

At the end of these preliminaries, perhaps rationale heads shall prevail and an Edwards/Obama ticket can guide and deliver a better tomorrow for all our children.

A concerned fellow citizen of this planet.  

 I was a reporter for 30 years and retired early after a corporate takeover of my paper. So I know slanted coverage when I see it, and I see it throughout this election.
It is most notable in CNN and its look-alikes, but there is also a scary tendency in this direction by our national public media. Some days their news is full of Hillary and Obama, with a  "you-too" nod to Edwards.
 Yet, Edwards is the only TRUE progressive in the race, the only person who can correct the nearly thirty years of  rightward movement in our nation.
  Edwards has said he will restore  fair, progressive tax structure, to erase our national debt and restore the dollar. Did you know that when the Eurodollar was launched, about seven years ago, that one U.S. dollar would get you about one and a half Euros. Did you also know that these days it takes about $1.40 to buy one Euro? Is that the product of a fiscally sound government???
 I think neither Hillary or Obama is electable at this crucial time, and that Edwards will be a strong realist like Truman and FDR. And  I think much of the attention now given Obama and Hillary is coming from the hard right, which wants either of them nominated because they can't win.
 I will most certainly  vote for Edwards, because he knows how vital it is to have a vibrant middle class in this democracy.

  Edwards is the democratic, progressive strong man and will restore the U. S. to its former glory.

Edwards is only one or two endorsements away from really taking that next big step- a step that obama is now taking- that could propell him through to the convention....edwards is the best candidate out their right now but he may not get the endorsements he needs because he doesn't take any special interest money or lobby money.....lets hope he can hang around at the 25% level just long enough to get those 2 or 3 endorsements he needs!!!....wouldn't an Edwards/ Biden ticket look awesome right about now???

The lack of press coverage for John Edwards is a sin against the American people being perpetrated by a corporate owned/monopolized media; the very people Edwards has in his sights! When the Democrats finally get the "real deal" they can't even recognize him. They're awed by the "same old thing in a new package". I'm looking for someone who can bring about the changes most wish to see, but it will never happen with any of the candidates on either side, because they all represent the status quo, with the exception of John Edwards. I'm part of his base and he is reason #1 that I am now a "Born again Democrat". I also think he will do very well in the western U.S. One thing we should be doing as supporters is visiting the other contenders' blogs and join in the discussions to express our views in a positive way. Rob

$400 haircuts are nothing compared to Obama's $160,000 from coal and nuclear executives. Roosevelt and Kennedy were both insanely wealthy and worked for regular Americans, as will Edwards--who unlike them has risen from poverty anyway. Get over the corporate rhetoric--if you're not voting for Edwards because of a haircut, you better not be voting for Clinton or Obama despite their enormous corporate contributions--nos. 1 and 2 recipients of health insurance company contributions.. Democrat or Republican. There is only one viable candidate of real change: John Edwards.

Barack Obama will "hope" that the economy gets better.
Barack Obama will "hope" that Republicans in Congress get along with Democrats.
Barack Obama will "hope" that college costs go down.

Barack Obama isn't an agent of change.  He's the same old thing.  He's black so people think he's different because he looks different than what they are used to seeing in his position.

The fact is, EVERY YEAR candidates run on Obama's message of changing the tone in Washington and bringing people together to bring about change.

They don't run on Edwards' message of kicking oil and drug companies, and insurance companies in the mouth, and beating them on behalf of the American people, like he did on behalf of his clients in court, WHO GOT JUSTICE.

Obama's way doesn't work.  It never has, and it never will, no matter how much water his supporters think he can walk on.  Or maybe he can fly.  After all, they think he "transcends" normal politics, even though is message is an old one...you hear it every year.

framecop,
Right on. I have been voting since 1968, and all the candidates are "change agents", and usually very vague on the details. It is the oldest line in politics. I want someone with a plan. I want Gore, but since we aren't going to get him (experience, intelligence, vision), I will back Edwards. No one has said the things he is saying since the Progressive Era died. Edwards knows the people he is up against. He fought them in court, and he fought them in 2004. For all we will ever know, Kerry and Edwards won that election. Obama cannot deal with the Republicans with hope alone. Besides, no one has won the White House without taking the south. Does anyone seriously believe that the Republicans aren't going to play the race game down there in the fall if Obama is the Democratic candidate? Does anyone seriously believe it won't work? Do you think we are a post-racist society? Take a good, hard look at New Orleans and think again.

Why do I feel like I am watching a high school popularity contest?  Is this Homecoming Queen & Class President elections all over again????

I think Edwards has the best chance of winning in the presidential election, because unfortunately Hillary and Obama polarized a lot of people.  The Republicans probably stood a 10% chance of winning the presidency in 2008, but if the democratic candidates are narrowed down to Hillary and Obama, they now have a 90% change of winning.  This is bad news, because having another four years of a Republican president will be devastating for America, along with the rest of the world.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):