>>>I can't believe you like Edwards. He is even phonier than Romney.
>>
>>I`d really like to know the basis of your opinion regarding John Edwards (and Mitt Romney, for that matter).
>
>
>I love that he does things that contradict's his calling cry, the "two Americas". His investments in hedge funds and subprime lending market. His $500K consulting and appearance fees.
>
>Do you really think he gives a crap about the other America?
>
>Generally speaking, they can all kiss my a$$.

I agree with your sentiment immediately above, and count myself lucky that I don't have to put up with a system like you have in operation there.

I understand that his was not 'investments' in hedge funds, but rather working as a paid consultant for a hedge fund. Which has to be a good way to learn just how they work.
I haven't heard of his investing in the sub-prime lending market, but there was a time when that was considerd not only 'respectable' as investments go, but also as somewhat benevolent because it was helping those who couldn't afford homes. Even people who have lots of money do have to make more of it somehow, and I'd bet that all the other candidates (that are of interest to the media) have investments that are just as questionable.
I bet you would cringe if you knew how much others (not political folk, but business people) collect as "consulting fees". Even when doing so for government activities.
You also know that all the other candidates grab "appearance fees" whenever they can.

By now Edwards HAS TO 'give a crap' about the other America - it's all he talks about.
The other candidates are the ones who - most certainly - have no regard for the other America. At least Edwards talks about being on the side of Joe Average. The others all let it be implied that taking care of regular politics will also take care of Joe Average. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Big media is interested in 2 things:
1) Immediate benefit in the form of spending on advertising by candidates. Only those with big bucks are promoted. Your Edwards and Huckabees present problems to them because they don't have the dough yet they keep hanging in. Look at what happened last summer when McCain was nearly broke. He disappeared from coverage. Look at what happened when Paul made some big bucks via the internet. Suddenly he was all over the media.
2) Future benefit in maintaining the status-quo for corporate dealings and growing the influence of corporate lobbies in politics. Not only is media big corporations, but they make their daily bread by selling time/space to other huge corporations. It's entirely in the media's interest to keep corporate 'strength' as huge as it can be.

The media talks up a lot that candidates enlist thousands of volunteers to promote their candidacies. Never mentioned is who is paying for the banks of phones used, the printing being designed and done, the creation of TV ads, the polls being conducted, the other "research" done to focus on specific groups, etc. All these things cost big $$$ and those paying the freight are expecting more than just tax write-offs as beneits for supplying their wares.

I can't think of another country where party leadership takes 18 months and half a billion dollars per candidate to be decided. No doubt it's real critical to the U.S. economy (especially these days) but the real purpose is to give corporations more leverage with the eventual winners.
In most countries an actual election (to become president or prime minister) takes 30 days to 45 days. Bucks are spent, but nothing like what flies around in the U.S. for all those months.

All of the dirty tricks of regular "marketing" are now widely used by political campaigns. It surprises me that such antics are allowed in politics there.

I contend that the media's influence is far far greater than you assess. To the point that most of you cannot even recognize it, it being so engrained in the culture.