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 corporate responses to his anti-big corporation stance. After Hillary's third place performance in the Iowa caucuses, the media then became enamored of Obama and busied themselves trying to deny their predominant role in appointing Hillary the certain candidate, blaming the matter on the Clinton campaign. Despite the fact that Edwards came in second, his win was underplayed and his programs again largely ignored - except, again, for his anti-corporate rhetoric, which made for more sensational coverage in comparison with their preoccupation with his barber expenses. Now, after Nevada, NH, and before SC, Edwards is considered nearly out of the picture, if you are not impressed by their continuous obsession with the same "controversial" hype about his anti-corporate promises. I also disagree with the author on a further point. The Edwards campaign has had little to do with the inattention of the media. The CORPORATE media in the U S know perfectly well where their interests lie, and so they have concentrated mostly on Edwards trivia - - and, of course, for his anti-corp - - , well, you know wthe rest. On the other hand, check out the Guardian (UK newspaper) of Jan. 18, 2008 article entitled "Edwards Claims Media Overlooking His Campaign". There have been many compalints in the Internet and in a few print media that the U S media are running (and ruining ?) the electoral campaign process - - and with considerablwe justification. The "debates" staged and controlled by the TV corporate channels have rendered them a farce and have arbitrarily excluded candidates, most notably Dennic Kucinich. In the case of one debate, NBC exculded Kucinich from the most recent debate by changing their criteria for participation AFTER a judge forbade NBC from doing so. Does any one really doubt that the corporate media are now not only dominating the campaign process, but largely controlling our elections ?