Incredible bias and smear campaign against Edwards- front page LA Times.

[Kajsa]

This- on the front page of today's LA Times!
Where did they get this reporter?!?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-demassess4jan04,1,864994.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

The results are especially damaging for Edwards, the former North Carolina senator. Even though he barely edged out Clinton for second place the Democratic race is very much a two-person contest, pitting Obama against Clinton.



Edwards was the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee thanks in part to his surprisingly strong second-place finish here in that year's caucuses. But after campaigning in the state nearly nonstop since then, Edwards was thought by some to have the strongest organization and the best chance at victory.

Despite gaining steam in recent weeks with sharply populist attacks on "corporate greed" and lobbyists' power, Edwards on Thursday failed to win his core base of union households and lower-income people.

He placed third among union households, winning 24% of that group, compared to 31% for Clinton and 28% for Obama, according to the entrance survey.

Edwards vowed on Thursday to compete in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary and beyond, but strategists for his rivals said they do not view him as a threat, mostly because of his lackluster fundraising and the expenditure limits imposed on his campaign because of his decision to accept public financing.

Second place is "damaging"?
Fundraising is "lackluster"?
"Placed third among union households"?

Want to throw some supporting evidence under that huge slant of yours, buddy?

You bet I wrote a LTTE.

It's bad enough Edwards has been ignored by the MSM- now this?

[debatepro]

1. considering

he has been running in the state for 4 years... i don't think his showing is impressive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. "Want to throw some supporting evidence under that huge slant of yours, buddy?"

The Iowa caucus doesn't count as evidence?

[Kajsa]

14. Of course it does!

WTH?

I repeat, second place is not the career destroying catastrophe
this reporter makes it out to be.

What evidence does he have to predict the crashing conclusion
of Edwards campaign that he paints with bold colors here?

That's what I'm referring to.

[mnhtnbb]

3. Maybe the reporter used to work for Rupert Murdoch?

[Bicoastal]

4. DID he place third among union households or didn't he?

I thought he did--and that IS a major disappointment if true.

[surfermaw]

7. He finished first among all Democrats! that is for sure!

[NYCGirl]

11. No, that's not true.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

[debatepro]

12. Umm NO! Obama won every party ID

He was almost 10 points behind obama with democrats. People should check the data before they make claimes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980

Democrat HRC 31 1 JE 23 Obama 32
Republican HRC 10 JE 32 Obama 44
Independent HRC 17 JE 23 Obama 41

[cali]

21. you are being deliberately

untruthful, maw. Remember those two racist threads you posted that got locked? You claimed the same thing and were informed numerous times that Obama won the most dems- by a hair. You continue spreading disinformation. Hardly surprising.

[frazzled]

19. Yes, third among candidates in Iowa caucus from union households

Here are the numbers:

Union households (22% of caucus goers): in first-choice entry polls: Clinton 30%, Obama 30%, Edwards 24%

We'll never know how that realigned after second choices were made.

Data: ION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM

[Kajsa]

32. Thanks for the link, frazzled.

This is surprising and disappointing.

[skipos]

5. The words are extreme but the general idea is accurate. I like Edwards

but he doesn't have a very good organization or very good poll numbers in NH or SC or anywhere else but IA. I don't see how he can come close to winning, though I would be fine if he did.

How is he going to turn poll numbers in the teens in the next few states into a win? 2nd place in IA isn't enough.

[AndyA]

6. Clinton and Obama: MONEY IS ALL - MONEY IS EVERYTHING!

And THAT is exactly what is wrong with this country today.

Greedy, sucking, leeches.

This should not be about money, and as long as money is put FIRST over all else, America will continue to deteriorate.

That's why we need CHANGE, and it won't come from Hillary or Barack.

Edwards is the guy to fix the problem. The others will just make it worse.

[cali]

25. Obama's campaign money is a direct reflection of the huge

support he has from everyday people in this country. He has approx 500,000 small donors. You can't handle that fact, but fact it is.

[Robbien]

8. MSM will only write bad articles on Edwards. So no pundit discussion

is good pundit discussion where the Edwards campaign is concerned.

[book_worm]

9. Wow! that figure on placing third among unions is a surprise.

[Kajsa]

16. It makes you question where he got that info

from, doesn't it?

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. The journalist is on a mission to get "the people" on board with what

they know in their heart is the right direction. It's simpler for "the people" that way.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Sounds accurate to me!

Edwards tied for 2nd when the expectations for him was that he needed to win first place.
That's the reason why politician downplay that sort of punditry...because it makes them look like they didn't achieve what they set out to do. So yes, his placing was damaging to his campaign. He underperformed according to expectations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/30/will-edwards-really-win-i_n_78792.html

Edwards does have a very real shot at winning this thing in Iowa. His campaign structure is the best, and his support is probably the most loyal amongst the top tier candidates. He has a set of advantages which put him in a good position to start with. He campaigned in this state all through 2003 and 2004, when he established a rapport with a large segment of the population here. He came in second in the 2004 caucuses and has held much of that support to this day. He’s also picked up a lot of the Kerry support from four years ago, being a logical step over in many people’s minds. He’s even drawn quite a bit of support from more independent Republicans who see no viable challenger to the status quo amongst their party’s candidates.
http://markmaynard.com/index.php/2007/12/19/john_edwards_closing_the_gap_in_iowa

John Edwards fundraising IS lackluster compared to the Clinton and Obama....has been all along, which is why Edwards accepted matching funds.

The stats do show that Edwards finished 3rd in Union Households. Where is your information showing different? :shrug:

[jgraz]

15. Title should read "incredible", not "incredulous"

For example: it's incredible that a major newspaper could publish such bullshit, and I'm incredulous that those dumb motherfuckers ever made it through journalism school.

[Kajsa]

17. You're right, jgraz.

Duly noted and changed.

[jgraz]

20. Reply should read "jgraz" and not "jpgraz"

For example: jgraz is the cleverest, most intelligent poster on the internets. I don't know who the fuck jpgraz is.

:P :P :P

[Kajsa]

23. LOL!

Your alter-ego?

:D

[jgraz]

26. People keep confusing me and jpgray

He and I are planning on staging a major flamewar someday just to fuck with people's brains. :D

[Sugar Smack]

28. Oooh, make sure you have the same avatar when you do it.

I'd dearly love to see that.:rofl:

[Kajsa]

31. That would really mess with the minds here!

:rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

18. Edwards LIVED in Iowa--he didn't win, even in a populist-bent state. He's cooked.

[robertpaulsen]

22. "It's bad enough Edwards has been ignored by the MSM- now this?"

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. --Mohandas Gandhi

I think MSM has moved from ignoring Edwards to fighting him. You can't laugh at a second place finish, but you can try to diminish it as this LA Times asshole has. I'm not even an Edwards supporter, just an MSM hater.

But for an Edwards supporter, I would see this as good news in light of Gandhi's wisdom. What happens after they fight you?

[Kajsa]

24. That's a good point, Robert.

" Then they fight you-Then you win"--Gandhi

I like it. :D

[Sugar Smack]

27. Oh, and the ironic quotations around the words CORPORATE GREED.

:eyes: Corporate greed is in our fucking faces, there's no nuance on the importance of the matter. Why didn't the supposed editor just write (sic) after the phrase?

[frazzled]

29. To answer your questions:

Second place is damaging?

Well, it wasn't a close second place. Obama beat him by more than 7.5 percentage points in a state that was supposed to be his.
And second place was, for all practical purposes, sort of a tie: only 1/4 of one percent ended up separating Edwards and Clinton.
Lastly, according to the arcane rules for assigning delegates based on turnout, Edwards actually came in third.
So yes, second place for the second time is sort of damaging. Second place was better than expected the first time; worse than expected the second.

Fundraising is lackluster?

I don't know why this is even an issue for you. It is no secret that he raised far less than either Obama and Clinton, which led to his taking public financing. As a race for the Democratic dollars, he was a very very distant third. So while "lackluster" might be not your favored adjective, it nonetheless suggests that, comparatively speaking, Edwards was not at the top of the pack.

Placed third among union households?

Yes. See the entrance polls I posted above. Union households (22% of caucus goers): Clinton 30%, Obama 30%, Edwards 24%.

This reporter is not conducting a smear camaign. It may feel like it to you, but it is relatively mild and accurate.

[OzarkDem]

30. Standard GOP talking points

expect a whole lot more of it.

[Kajsa]

33. Record breaking online contributions for Edwards.

Within the last 24 hours.


( Thanks, TennesseeGal for the link)

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20080104-record-breaking-contributions/

Edwards Campaign Reports Record-Breaking Contributions Online
Jan 4, 2008 11:52 AM

Strong finish in Iowa attracts thousands of first-time donors, putting campaign on track for best online fundraising day to date
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Following a strong second-place finish in the Iowa Caucuses last night, the John Edwards for President campaign announced record-breaking online fundraising totals, putting the campaign on track for its best online fundraising day to date.
"We have been absolutely overwhelmed by the response to Sen. Edwards' strong finish in Iowa," said Edwards' senior strategist Joe Trippi. "We're on track for our best online fundraising day ever, since www.JohnEdwards.com went up a year ago – and half of the contributions we're seeing are from new donors to the campaign. That speaks volumes to the strength of John Edwards' message of standing up and fighting for the middle class."
The campaign first saw an uptick in online fundraising late last night, as the results from Iowa's first-in-the-nation contest began rolling in. The surge continued overnight, and by 8:45am ET this morning the campaign's online contributions had already topped the previous day's day-long total. Between the hours of 10:00am and 11:00am ET today, the campaign experienced its best online fundraising hour ever.
Also noteworthy about Edwards' online fundraising totals today:
Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign
More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today's online contributions are for amounts less than $100
John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate in the race who has never accepted a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists. The campaign also noted that the impact of many of today's online contributions will be doubled by federal matching funds.

[ncliberal]

34. That is great news!

Thank you for posting the link.

[Kajsa]

35. Isn't it, though?

You're welcome! :D

Even a small contribution will help.