Or perhaps maybe the mainstream corporate media is playing down Edwards because he is the only major candidate running a populist campaign.

No there is not. A compelling case for each side, that is. Enough with the optics already. It is time to get serious about policy, run on substance so the Democrat, whoever that turns out to be, can credibly claim a policy mandate. This is particularly important in an election that is shaping up to be one in which the Democratic nominee is very likely to win, no matter what substantive platform they adopt. So we should look beyond the optics to the policy and make our choice on substance, race, gender, or who has the prettiest haircut.

dmh, it would be nice if presidential campaigns worked that way. They never have.

Optics/positioning defines how you use your own advantages as a canddiate. "Enough strategy, let's be sincere..." is really pie in the sky.

dmh, any Democrat who runs for president *must* be ready to "credibly claim a policy mandate" *regardless* of the existence of, and/or the strength of, connections among the platform, the campaign, the electoral result, and the policy problems.

Because there will be an entire GOP and MSM dedicated to thwarting us, no matter what the Democratic nominee runs on, no matter what the campaign does, no matter what the margin of victory is, and no matter what the circumstances of the issue are.

(I don't mean to go off on dmh, but on Democratic campaigns and consultants who think that there's an objective reality or a silver bullet, like "If only we could find the perfect combination of policy and prescription and solution and political tactics and then win an election, we'd *have* to be able to get something done!" - because the truth is, you only get as much power as you claim, and you only *keep* as much power as you defend, and too often, Democrats think they've earned a bye in the bracket by having the right answer, or having won an election, or having found a compromise that sells out some base group, and they wonder why Republicans beat their asses silly.)

I don't disagree that the public might perceive Edwards as yesterday's news, but I just don't see how that belief has developed. Hillary is constantly referring to the 90's, of the rpesidency of her husband, and either ourright stating or implying that a vote for her will bring the country back to the prosperity of the 90's. That, to me, is old news.

Ockham's razor is that HRC has more appeal/name rec among "low information" voters, while Obama has more appeal among "high information" voters, and that it's six months to the Iowa caucuses so no one is paying attention.

Even if Hillary is old news, she's old *winning* news. Edwards, OTOH, lost twice in 2004.

I think that the Republicans feel it would be much harder to win against a white southern populist male than a women with a high negatives or a black man with a name that sounds similar to our country's #1 bad guy right now and that's why Edwards isn't gaining traction. The MSM takes all their cues from the right wing noise machine and therefore is concentrating on hyping both Clinton and Obama, because it will be much easier for the Republicans to win with either of them. They don't want the masses to hear Edwards or his wife because they fear him the most.

yawn. This is a tired analysis. Edwards has had plenty of coverage. The problem is that he lacks gravitas, exemplified by his poor performance against dick cheney in the vp debates. Nobody would ever say that about Obama, which is a major reason people want to cover him. Also, the whole poverty talk, while good, is not that innovative. Look back at Nader's campaigns.

Edwards is sitting front and center on the cover of this month's Esquire magazine (with the curious side bar reading "Can a white man still become president"? Did I miss the time when a white man WASN'T president?

"The MSM takes all their cues from the right wing noise machine and therefore is concentrating on hyping both Clinton and Obama, because it will be much easier for the Republicans to win with either of them. They don't want the masses to hear Edwards or his wife because they fear him the most."

Yeah, Clinton and Obama appeal to Democrats, but Edwards has the best chance of taking not-wealthy Republican voters. And, they don't want that.

Quick!-- more anti-abortion politics!

Serious poverty talk, with actual goals and programs and commitment, would be innovative for a major Dem (Nader was Green, remember). A better translation of your post is that it wouldn't be as exciting for reporters to cover because they've heard something like it before. That might be accurate. And, if so, terribly depressing.

Apparently I was not particularly clear on some issue and on others I simply disagree with the analysis implicit in this post and some of the comments. Let me give it another go.

This is, by any measure, a particularly auspicious election for Democrats. It is likely, barring some unforeseeable circumstance, a year in which they will win the presidency and enlarge, perhaps substantially, their majorities in the House and Senate.

Given this, and given the obsession of too much of the media with the "character" and personality of the candidates, the best possible outcome is for the nominee, whoever that is, to run on a very specific policy platform that the winner can later point to in claiming a governing and policy mandate. Otherwise it is too easy for the Republicans and the media to characterize the election as a rejection of Bush (which it almost certainly will be in part), a desire for a "new direction" (whatever that means), or other such soft and mushy nonsense. We can deny them this bludgeon if our candidate runs on a sufficiently specific and detailed platform that s/he can claim that the electorate knew exactly what they were voting for, and it was universal health care and a fairer tax system and not the best hair cut or the person who projected the most warm and fuzzies.

No harm in being warm, or a woman, or an African American, or someone who speaks the language of reconciliation or whatever it is that Obama seems to have that appeals to people, but it is no substitute for a policy agenda that moves us in the right direction. They are not mutually exclusive but the personality/gender/warmth without the policy will turn out to be an empty vessel.

As to whether Edwards has received plenty of attention from the press: I suppose that depends on who is answering the question. As, Nicolas points out, if you follow the CV then Edwards may very well not have received as much attention. In the WashPo polls, at least in the last iteration I saw, HRC had, by far, the highest number responded to the question "do you know this candidate well." This should probably be expected, since she's had over eight years in the public spotlight. She doubled Obama and Edwards. But notice that: Obama and Edwards were running neck and neck. Even though Edwards was a VP candidate in one of the most heated Presidential campaigns ever. Many, if not most, people who don't cover this full press like the people who respond to this blog do, probably think of Edwards as that good looking southern guy who buys expensive haircuts and was a VP candidate and potentially very little else. On the other hand, those who probably know him the best [the voters, or poll takers, of Iowa where he has spent the past three years or so] have generally been supportive of him. So, I would say that a lack of information, in some sense, has posed a problem for him. His recent Good Morning America appearance couldn't have hurt, even if the third audience question was about his stupid haircut.

It's probably not just his "lack of attention," or what have you, but I do think that (and the type of attention that has been accorded) does play *some* role.

To expand on the type of coverage remark, one can see today's Daily Howler.

If everytime Edwards has been mentioned these past few months, he's been mentioned with the phrases big fat house, expensive haircut, and hedge fun, then maybe that has some clue as to why he's sagging. It's a possibility.

If you are to get to the bottom of Edwards' lack of appeal, I would encourage folks to look at the essential weakness of his appeal. He comes across as a slick huckster who doesn't believe what he says. And that may not be a matter of perception. For example, his political complexion prior to 2003 was a Clintonesqe southern moderate with frankly neo-con or neo-liberal (was there a difference back then?) views on foreign policy. Yes, he has "apologized" for his Iraq war vote, but that doesn't solve the basic problem that the next President will need to deal with Iran and others that are called "threats." Under those circumstances (when he is not running as a "populist") will he essential neo-con instincts prevail? Also I would urge Progressives to think along the lines of restructuring the economy to make it perform better over time a la FDR (re-regulating Wall Street and the derivatives markets to avoid a pensions crisis and and prevent an outright shutdown of auto parts sector by private equity) rather than an anti-poverty program a la LBJ (that assumes a highly productive and democratic economy as a given). Edwards would not understand why his re-distributive agenda is different than FDR's or care.

He comes across as a slick huckster who doesn't believe what he says.

Hmmm Karl, don't you have better things to do at the White House?

I'm so smitten with Obama I can't see why anyone would be for anyone but Obama.

Who cares about policy? A candidate should have some principles and a few goals, together with the political acumen and charisma needed to get legislation passed. Policy is what you have at the end of the process, but it's not something you sell yourself with. It's like if you were living in rural West Virginia and a guy came by in a shiny red Camaro and offered to drive you to Manhattan. The goal and the vehicle would make the offer hard to resist. Conversely, if some dude came up and started enthusing about this new set of directions he got off Mapquest, mentioning the virtues of his car and the destination only in passing, you wouldn't really be tempted.

Enough policy. No one cares.

"Also I would urge Progressives to think along the lines of restructuring the economy to make it perform better over time a la FDR (re-regulating Wall Street and the derivatives markets to avoid a pensions crisis and and prevent an outright shutdown of auto parts sector by private equity) rather than an anti-poverty program a la LBJ (that assumes a highly productive and democratic economy as a given)."

I agree with this. I also think it's one of the hardest things to get. All the candidates are complicit. These are all very wealthy people. Are any of them immune from the pervasive desire of the already rich to make another quick buck?

Yeah right Col Bat Guano (who wrote "Hmmm Karl, don't you have better things to do at the White House?" to my post above). Karl Rove is likely to want to open a debate on reregulating Wall Street in the interest of protecting the lower 80% of the population against the coming post-bubble shakeout. Go read my post again.