Recommended.  

However, blaming the press for emphasizing strategy and personality over substance does not explain what goes on here every damn day -- dozens of diaries on the candidates behavior, history, character and future in the race and next to nothing on policy.   The problem isn't the press -- they give the public what it wants -- the problem is us.  

I actually read a comment here recently (and hate myself that I didn't call it out) where an otherwise thoughtful narrative on how the writer came to their  opinion on Clinton concluded with their opinion being sealed by a scene from "Primary Colors"!  They finalized their support of a real-life presidential candidate based on their response to how an actress, playing a character based on that candidate, responded in a ficticious moment in a popular movie of a book written anonymously.  And this decision wasn't stored in the secret recesses of some "low information voter" -- it was publically touted as tranformative by a supposed tuned-in progressive blog poster.

Bottom line?  A handful of voters here and everywhere give a real damn about policy and the kind of president each candidate might be.  It's all about identifying with a candidate, unexamined dislike for or dismissal of their opponents and the need to feel superior in our choices.  The media is only doing the play-by-play for us.

She is so refreshing.  The major blogs are in cohoots with the MSM and are so focused on superdelegate counts; not about the issues anymore.

I think the mainstream media is, unfortunately, reacting to the blogging culture that we know today.

Watching CNN and other "news" sources is embarassing compared to the news media of even five years ago.

Having a panel of pundits these days is akin to simply rounding up a random batch of your friends and having them argue about who they like for president.  Everyone talks about having the "best political team in the business" yet most of the pundits are absolutely incapable of thinking on both sides of the fence.  

It's sad, really.

I hope the MSM will wake up to this reality, but I'm guessing they won't.

Well stated. Rec'ed.

hear hear!

Thank you for posting this.
I hit that funny button in the upper right corner...

Recommended.

to speak her mind at the most critical moments. Thanks for this refreshing diary!  And thanks for cross posting at eenr, where the progressive news is!

Now let's have all the candidates start speaking this truth to power instead of using it to bash eachother.

Anyone who saw the Bill Moyer's interview with Rev.Wright saw the difference between true journalistic skillful integrity and the clowns (Olbermann included) posing as journalists when they are more akin to WWF announcers.  

I remember a time when guys like Geraldo were shunned by the journalistic community; now they surpass his ilk in sensationalism and breathing life into irrelevancy.  Instead of dissecting Clinton's voting record or career they sift through the contents of her purse.  Instead of doing the same with Obama they examine him through the same lens they use in Paris Hilton.  It's all flash and trash without a grain of substance.  

I'm still beside myself for the Katie Couric interview of Clinton a few months ago.  Why not just get Joan Rivers?

I was hoping to diary on this piece, but I got too caught up parsing every single word looking for the tiniest hint of pro-Hillary bias.  (I took the title as a subtle nod, but I'm sure I read it through a certain prism)

I just have to say, I love her, and she's right.

That's all, really.

E. Edwards is right, of course, but unfortunately, this is not a new observation. She could have written the same column, with minor changes, for just about every election that I can remember. The 2000 election still galls me--how it came to be decided based on the price of arthritis drugs for dogs and which Texas fire Gore visited with which official instead of any substantive issues, on which Gore cleaned Bush's clock. I also still don't understand what was the big deal about Dukakis riding a tank.

The press, of course, bears a large burden of the blame, but they're also encouraged to do so in some part by the campaigns, which flog silly stories repeatedly as well and often make studied efforts to play up personal narratives instead of issues.

I guess we all agree on the problem. I wish I could see some way that we could fix this, but I get the sense we'll be reading similar columns again every four years.

are THE issues on America's mind.

That's what they care about. Food!

And the cost is too high. Who will bring

the price of food and gas down?

John Edwards was wrong when he said we were having an auction and not an election. We are having an auction. We are judging who the most qualifed person to be President by who raises the most money. I remember reading an article in Forbes magazine last year in the doctor's office about the 2008 election. Basically, the article listed 5 candidates who big business was betting on to become President. The 5 candidates were Rudy, Romney, McCain, Obama and Clinton. Now look at the candidates who got the most coverage. Yep, the same 5 candidates. Until we do major campaign finance reform then I do not think anything will change. The only reason Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, etc. did not get coverage was because they did not raise the most money. Had Biden raised more money than Obama than Biden would have gotten the most coverage.The media ignore Ron Paul at first until he started to raise alot of money and then they had to cover him a little even though the media probaly did not want to because he is against the status quo and is a threat to the MIC. But they did not mention him until he started to raise millions. Even then, they marginalize him.How will anything change in this country if we keep letting the MSM pick our candidates for us? Knowing that the only reason they cover them more is because they can raise the most corporate cash and will not be a threat to big business. Either Obama and Clinton will be a better President than McCain but both are to friendly to big business. As citizens we need to quit letting the media pick our candidates.

This is a very well written piece by Mrs. Edwards. And quite telling of what the news media thinks of the American Public. It got so bad in 2004 I thought John Edwards first name was, "The Young, Handsome, Senator from North Carolina John, which does hinder his credentials.Being part of the media myself, we are often told in meetings, by our superiors, to "Dumb it Down" so to speak. lest we lose our stupidest listener. I think the program is called " No Idiot Left Behind" Which doesn't help the more intelligent listeners, but keeps the ones tuned who are too stupid to change the station anyway. This practice goes back to the Nixon Kennedy Debate, a great debate if listened to on radio, but on T.V. all you could do was watch Nixon's shadowy face, and how young and vibrant John Kennedy looked. On radio the debate was scored about even, Nixon having a slight edge in some newspapers (probably Republican slanted).Unfortunately this is how the media works today.  

yes yes yes!!! i totally agree with EE, the media is choosing who becomes our next pres and it is really creepy...

A woman with real class. I'd of voted for her over her husband. As usual, most of what she says is right.

at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.

I said many times last year that if Biden had the media hype Obama was getting, he would be a strong contender for the nomination. He had a great stump speech and performed better in every debate than Obama did, but all you heard from the leading analysts was that Biden was a gaffe machine.

I always respect Elizabeth Edwards tremendously.  Here is another reason why.  I too would vote for her if she runs for president.  I hope that she recovers fully from her illness and continues to live as the fascinating person she is!

Elizabeth Edwards deserves a thank you note from every American.  She confronted the media and point out the its failure to fulfill its role as an independent observer and report the facts that help the people make decision.  The US media tell us what to think and how to perceive each candidate.  They failed their duty and that's why we are in this mess.

Thanks you Elizabeth.

This could come across like a dig, but I mean this in all sincerity:

It's great to see Clinton supporters, some of whom defended the ABC debate's lack of policy discussion, agree with Mrs. Edwards on the need to focus on more important issues.

   it was Edwards emerging as our nominee. He would be head and shoulders above both Clinton and Obama.

We haven't had a free press since Reagan was president. Could have lost it before then but I wasn't aware of it before then.
When Bush Sr. was president,  UNICEF brought leaders (not subordinates or representatives) from 76 countries to meet in NY to protect the worlds children. 76 leaders from 76 countries, Bush Sr. did not attend, his excuses ran from the less fortunate countries would expect us to help vaccinate their kids, to it went against some states laws that children could be tried as adults and put to death. It was an agreement that was eventually ratified by over 150 countries. The day of...the day after these 76 leaders came to OUR country do you know how many stories there was about it? ZERO. None in the paper, none on TV- NONE. I called UNICEF and asked them why...it was blacked out from coast to coast by Bush simply asking the media not to report on it. We didn't have the internet then. The following year one female journalist did a story in Newsweek Magazine about the Childrens Protective agreement and her article was allowed to go to print but 'edited' to say Bush attended for a short time and no mention that the US did not ratify the agreement. This would have protected children during wars to mention just one thing. ZERO news coverage, not on the West Coast, not on the East Coast- not in NY where it went down. I'm a little fuzzy on all the details sitting here right now but I do still own that one Newsweek Magazine where the story finally appeared.

So Elizabeth noticed, she's being very polite or was unaware before the blackout of her husband, Biden, Richardson and even Clinton because yes- the media chooses our candidates and has been doing so for quite some time. Think people aren't or haven't been trying to do something about getting a free press back?

Pay attention to who advertises and pays for the programs and news you watch. You want better content, more substantive news, etc. write to them.   We all know more about Britney Spears not wearing underwear and every move she makes than we know about ANY candidate running for president. Why do you think Bush/Cheney hate the internet? Hate PBS? Hate Hollywood? But if you think this started with Bush/Cheney you are absolutely wrong. Those who have internet think they are more 'informed' and used properly we could be more informed and we could be more united and we could scare the poop out of the government and make it accountable to the people, but we don't, because.......

Also, one could argue that healthcare policy details actually do matter less than personality traits.  Because the US Congress writes and passes healthcare legislation, not the President.  The President can only prevent non-supermajorities from passing laws.  Any other influence he or she has is a function of his political and/or personal skill in persuading legislators.  Install a president with amazing policies but whom everybody hates, and nothing will get passed.

We should be paying more attention to bills and cosponsors, and the candidates reactions to them, rather than the candidates' plans themselves.