In South Carolina John Edwards campaign Close to do or die

On the issues, John Edwards says he should have the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up.

For starters, the U.S. economy is on shakier ground now than it was four years ago when Edwards ran for president, decrying job losses due, he said, to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“We’ve all seen what happens with these trade deals,” he said recently.

But a clearly frustrated Edwards, the Seneca native who is running third in his native state, said his message has been lost in the media glare given two “celebrity candidates.”

More attention is focused on whether he’ll quit after Saturday’s Democratic primary than on what he’s saying.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, * South Carolina, US Presidential Election 2008

7 comments on “In South Carolina John Edwards campaign Close to do or die

  1. Chris says:

    Close to Do or Die? Uh, try dead, or at least on life support. His make or break state was Iowa, where he won in ’04. He came in 3rd, and that was the end of that.

  2. Anglicanum says:

    [i] But a clearly frustrated Edwards, the Seneca native who is running third in his native state, said his message has been lost in the media glare given two “celebrity candidates.” [/i]

    You and most of the others, Mr. Edwards. The media decides who we will and won’t hear about it, virtually determining the outcome of the election for us. I would like to have heard more about some of the so-called ‘third tier’ candidates, like Sam Brownback, but NPR and CBS and the whole bunch decided they weren’t worth talking about. Lately, they’ve decided they aren’t worth inviting to the debates either. We can look candidates up on-line and watch their YouTube videos, but when we consistently hear about two or three candidates and none of the others, most people forget they’re even in the race.

    My father used to tell me that any [man] could grow up to be president. I sincerely doubt that anymore. If you don’t have a trillion dollars and ‘star power,’ the media won’t pay any attention. (Of course, Edwards has the trillion dollars, so maybe that’s gone by the wayside too.)

  3. Katherine says:

    I think we were a lot better off when candidates were chosen by the party faithful at conventions. The gruelling round of primaries coupled with the campaign finance “reform” laws makes beggars and media stars the ones who can compete, with the exception of a few ultra-wealthy who don’t have to go begging. And those are the objects of contempt from the ones forced to be beggars. What we have now is “American Idol” on politics.

  4. Dave B says:

    I have to disagree about wealth and star power to some extent. Colin Powel could have been pres and he grew up to a relatively poor family, Condi Rice would probably make a great canidate and she is not from wealth. Obama is a great canidate and he is not noted for great wealth. I think that the press is taking the place of the back room power brokers that decided this things at conventions in the past. Edwards is a pretty face and about as deep as a sand hill mud puddle.

  5. Tar Heel says:

    Edwards talks a lot about there being “two Americas.” Unfortunately for him, one of them favors Hillary, and the other favors Obama. Guess who is odd man out.

    Signed, a Tar Heel who felt extremely under-represented when this man was a senator from my state.

  6. libraryjim says:

    As to wealth making a President — it didn’t help either Rockefeller nor Malcom Forbes nor Ross Perot. They were all multi-millionaires who failed miserably to capture any thing like a major percentage of the voters (Perot came closest, but his dropping out because “Bush was going to sabatoge my daughter’s wedding” and then coming back in as an independent really hurt him).

  7. David Fischler says:

    Re #6

    I believe you meant Steve Forbes.