From TPM Reader AM:
In response to [the] piece on the Edwards media blackout:
I served as an advisor for the Edwards campaign on its energy/environmental platform and when we met with John and Elizabeth back in October, he made it very clear that his strategy was to ride the wave of media coverage following a victory in Iowa. It actually sort of played to his advantage that the media gave him scant coverage in advance of Iowa because the “surprise” win would have received major airplay in the days leading into New Hampshire. But Edwards is caught in a maelstrom that he couldn’t effectively counter… two very strong candidates, one of whom (Obama) grabbed the mantle of being the change candidate. Edwards couldn’t differentiate himself enough from Obama and didn’t get the much needed win in Iowa. He then made a strategic gamble that backfired when he tried to knock Clinton out of the race and make it a two-man show with Obama. Not only did Clinton surprise everyone, I believe Edwards attacks on her in the debate and his comments about her tearing up actually helped her.
While I think there’s something here to the idea of the corporate media ignoring his candidacy because of his message, there’s more to this story.
Late Update: Not so fast, says TPM Reader KJ:
With all due respect, I think reader AM has it backwards: the year-long media blackout of Edwards in 2007 was clearly what forced Edwards into making that “strategic gamble” (as AM called it) on Iowa.
It can’t be said to have backfired, because it wasn’t really a gamble – by that point, Edwards had no other plausible choice but to stake everything on Iowa.
Later Update: The Edwards camp has put out a video about the media ignoring him:
Greg Sargent has more at The Horse’s Mouth.
