This post asserts that Edwards was slighted by the news media. One may or may not agree but there is virtually nothing in this post that would help you make up your mind.

I agree with Francis Scalzi that the author is giving the media a pass and shifting blame. Next question: What is anybody going to do about it? Are we going to go on having auctions instead of elections, and letting the talking heads write the script? My radical proposal is that the political parties need to reclaim control of the nominating process -- which is, after all, a Party matter, not something operated by the federal government. Why should the parties let the media, or anyone else, choose their nominees? The media really, really love to hype the role of "independents," and indeed, fewer and fewer people belong to political parties. What does that mean for our nominating process? My suggestion is that the parties ... More »

The author gives the media a "pass" too often in this article. My assessment may seem harsh by comparison, but it seems fairly clear that the media at first were preoccupied with crowning Hillary the "inevitable" winner to the near exclusion of everyone else, except for perhaps whether America was "ready" for a woman or for a black candidate - - something they were loath to pursue too far for fear of sounding like sexists or racists. We have had a lot of fun watching the pundits squirm in their seats trying to cloud the issue in circumlocution. Edwards was, from the beginning, dubbed an "also ran" and largely ignored by the media, which failed to present his very solid, progessive "platform" - - except to issue reports on ... More »