The invisible candidates

I get furious with the American media for ignoring... well, lots of things. What goes on in the world that may be important to the globe but isn't fixated on the U. S. Substantive issues. Concepts that take more than a soundbyte to explain. Context. And damned near anything that might conceivably threaten the corporations that own the media.

I also get upset over their trying to shape campaigns instead of reporting them or helping us understand them. Eliminating candidates from debates, for instance. Or acting as though it is only about A or B, while ignoring C, D, E, etc.

I have already admitted that, with Gore out of the picture, I have a preference for John Edwards. I may be very white collar professional but my roots are entirely blue collar. I know what it feels like to try to scrape by while wondering how to keep some semblance of health care, and struggling to decide which bills to pay this time around. I have lived close to the edge far too many years of my life (and am still far from financially secure). So when Edwards speaks of "two Americas" and the need to disempower those who profit from the misery and insecurity of the many while continuing to accumulate more power and wealth in the hands of the very few, I cheer him on. One may argues parties and ideologies but for my money, Edwards has targeted where some of our thorniest and most intractable issues lie, the ones that actually affect us daily. So, my bias here is right up front, where it should be.

Now, sit back and enjoy the video. John who?




h/t to the Vagabond Scholar, who has more on this, including a nice graph to help one visualize the issue, and to FranIAm who pointed me to the video and to the Invisible Scholar.
--the BB