(h/t Greg Sargent @ The Horse’s Mouth)
Via Steve Benen, is the Edwards campaign getting “screwed” by the MSM’s fixation with the Clinton/Obama horse race? Greg Sargent believes the numbers seem to indicate just that. TNR’s Jason Zengerle is skeptical, however:
…I think Edwards received plenty of media attention in the year before the caucuses and primaries began. Maybe he didn’t receive as much as Hillary and Obama, but then his candidacy wasn’t as historic as theirs, plus he trailed them in the national polls. Edwards ran a very good campaign and I think you can make the argument that he actually had the biggest impact in terms of policy on the race–setting a progressive standard that the other candidates tried to meet–but he lost, and the fact that he lost wasn’t the media’s fault.
Conceding several points, Sargent still stands by his original post:
Whether it was the constant coverage of the $400 haircut; the subtext in much coverage that Edwards’ personal wealth rendered his populism little more than a phony and ineffective gimmick; or the constant and relentless portrayal of the race as a showdown between two political superstars, there’s just no denying that in terms of the scope and tone of the coverage, Edwards has basically gotten screwed.
I’m certainly no John Edwards partisan, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that, post-Iowa, Edwards has been noticably absent from the campaign news cycle thanks to minutia-obsessed MSM coverage of the “gloves off” Clinton vs. Obama slap fight. Whether the marginalization is circumstantial or deliberate, the effect is still the same: Edwards is now persona non grata.
Update: Speaking of persona non grata (yes, he’s still running–no, srsly!)
Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers