how the few can form a populus' choices for our highest office.

Why is it that Americans continue to ignore his moving message?  Have we become so insensitive to the needs of those many Americans who are so less fortunate than us?  Has life changed so much in our country from the days when The War on Poverty was on everyone's mind and lips.  I know, it's more popular to campaign on the middle-class needs, after all, the poor usually don't vote.  

I sure hope that Obama and Clinton speak more to the needs of those who have no voice, the poor.

Only the middle class and working poor don't realize it.  It's more like a turkey shoot.

Anytime we talk of measures to end poverty, the rich fight back with words like "socialism, communism, protectionism, class warfare, liberal" and so forth.

When we discuss fair trade policy - which means that we demand equal access to our trading partner's markets - we are called "protectionists" or accused of trying to close the borders to trade.

When we discuss fair immigration policy that doesn't harm the American workforce, they pull out the word "xenophobe" as if we have some irrational fear of foreign people.  Any corporate sponsored visa amounts to indentured servitude so when Democrats discuss amnesty I hope they are talking about visas that enable workers to change jobs without impacting their immigration status.  Guest worker programs really amount to legalized exploitation of people.

When we discuss the unfair monetary policies of China, the trade imbalance with Canada and Mexico via NAFTA, or the vast majority of "free trade" agreements which result in massive deficits, we are reminded that we export services.  What they don't mention is that we are now a net importer of services.  Because of our wreckless trade policy, the center of the IT world has shifted from silicon valley to Bangalore.  Our manufacturing base is being destroyed before our eyes.  

Multinational corporations don't represent our national interests.  Yet they have more influence over our government than the middle class.  That just isn't right.

Finally, the reason the rich are winning in this country is because they control the debate.  The corporate controlled media (seriously, not wearing a tin hat) spins things in a way that is favorable to corporations.  I seriously doubt they care if a Democrat or Republican is elected as long as the person elected continues the status quo.

John Edwards scares the corporations.  He wouldn't take their bribes - er campaign donations.  Hillary shamelessly takes their money.  Of course the corporate owned media is going to back Hillary Clinton.  If you think Edwards isn't viable, you must be kidding yourself if you think Obama is viable.  Talk about living with the blinders on.  Clinton is the pre-ordained candidate because she is the corporate candidate.

Not many of us here who see the need for a "battle plan" as opposed to hope and faith in the kindness of human nature.  As the campaign wears on, I really have to believe that the media owners fear Edwards....Who loses money if we shift to 100% public financing?  I think Edwards should copy Huckabee by developing 5 or 6 hit ads and then calling a news conference to show them and explain why he won't approve them (sarcasm! for the skim readers of RK..i.e. I don't really mean it).

From a previous post of mine:  Another interesting subject in previous RK comments is the republican version of importing indentured servants for specific high tech jobs which, if the foreign employee switchs employers results in immediate deportation (ha).

I'm for compromise when possible and understand that I have to give a little to get a little.  This is not a widely held understanding AND, before anyone goes after John Edwards as a non-believer in compromise, think about the difference between compromise and capitulation.

Also, when people have asked me why I don't run for public office, I responded (beginning years ago) with:  I wouldn't want to be a Senator, but I wouldn't mind owning 5 or 6 of them.

Campaign Finance Reform, Anyone?

The people have no information and thus no voice.  There have been mislead about all the candidates, especially (and systematically) Edwards.  We are being had.

I have stopped watching NBC Nightly.  I believe one is better off watching nothing.

One study showed those relying of network evening news knew as much about current events as those who consumed no news at all.

I rely on more independent news sources and analysis.  You will get better analysis from this blog alone on major news stories than any network.

I would rather filter through oppinion and poor journalism in the independent media than through deliberately misleading journalism found in the corporate media.

But the shameful part is that most people in this country don't know how or where to find independent sources of information.  Many cannot afford an internet connection and are victims of the digital divide.  They believe what FOX news tells them.

They walk to the polls like sheep - maybe lemmings are better anology.  It's really quite sad for our country that we are faced with such a widescale misinformation campaign.

The quanity of news on cable television has gone up.  The quality has gone way down.

...I don't have cable TV, so I really don't know, but how much does cable cost compared to high-speed internet service?  I guess what I'm saying is I find it a bit difficult to believe that money is what's blocking people from getting online, when they are quire capable of shelling out whatever cable TV (plus premium channels) costs.  And no, I don't consider cable TV to be a necessity...I haven't had it for 15 years and I don't in the least bit miss it.

that's another pet peeve of mine.  Seriously, you can flip over to the PBS NewsHour for the same effort and cost as watching trash local and national news on the corporate media networks.  But, god forbid, you might actually LEARN something on the NewsHour, and it's not just "missing young white girls," shark attacks, fire and mayhem.  No fun, in other words!  But seriously, I don't think it's that people don't know where to find good information, I think they CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.

...I don't have cable TV, so I really don't know, but how much does cable cost compared to high-speed internet service?  

Your analysis certainly hasn't suffered.  I would guess that people relying on cable TV alone are not much better off than people without any form of media.

My wife and I have been discussing the option of turning off cable television.  The only problem for us is that we like the highest broadband speeds (15mb/s) and to get that you've got to have a premier cable package.

But quite honestly, cable television is harming my children and a distraction from my work.  We would be better off without it.

It's possible to find out what the candidates are saying, notwithstanding that the mainstream media is heavily filtering the ones that they disfavor, like Edwards.  For instance, on Meet the Press today, the one topic among many was the exchanges between Obama, Clinton and Edwards on Ronald Reagan.  (Which was a trumped up thing anyway, but never mind.)  Edwards got a little sound bite in which he says, "I would never refer to Ronald Reagan as an example of change.", or words to that effect.  And that was it.  They totally filtered out whatever reasons Edwards gave for saying that.  However, if you don't want to accept that filtering, there's YouTube and other sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

In the short term I don't think we have many options.  In the mid to long-term there is much to be done (and that can be done).  Will write on that shortly.  However, the so-called MSM and the telecoms, and big ISPs are trying to thwart alternate sources of information.

One example is that sites like alternet.org and other worthy sites are finding some big providers blocking folks from opening emails from it. This is discrimination pure and simple.  And it will have to be fought in the courts (takes too long in the short term).  

Didn't Gore start up currenttv.com to create an outlet for progressive views?  Haven't heard much about it, but then again, that's probably my fault for not paying attention.  

Here's some things on John Edwards that are on CurrentTV.com:
http://current.com/search/sear...

The media plays such an important role in our country and our democracy.  Just as Ma-Bell was broken years ago, media consolidation should also be broken.  It isn't healthy that just a few companies own the vast majority of the media.  They have have created a media empires largely void of competition.

This is a sign of creeping fascism. Be on guard. Its not just about John Edwards.

do I need to say anymore? How about putting that video back up  which has the Edwards campaign claiming they might win NV?

Talk about dropping out not press coverage which is 18 days old. Remember since then Edwards came in a very far back 3rd place in NH, lost in MI, and got humiliated in NV, to put that in perspective, Ron Paul got 3 times as much support in the Republican Caucus as Edwards got in the Democratic. Then we have SC coming up where he polls show he might actually hit double digits. Is his firewall NC? I sure hope not because the last poll I saw there has both BHO and HRC beating him. PLEASE DROP OUT!!

Hillary will have a tough time digging herself out of the hole she just created for herself tonight.

Also, Nevada isn't warm to the Edwards message.  They are a libertarian state, and frankly libertarians could care less about the social and economic issues that Edwards supports.

He was at 27% in NV and got only 4%. He's at 15% in SC and will be lucky to get 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

The reason Edwards got such a low percentage in Nevada is because those were CAUCUSES, and if you're below 15% you aren't "viable" so your supporters have to switch to another candidate.  Totally different situation in SC.

By the way, I think the better Edwards does in SC, the worse for Hillary Clinton.

A primary in SC is much different than a caucus in NV.  Apples and oranges.