There has been something of a mainstream media blackout of the John Edwards campaign and it has nothing to do with his campaign prospects.

After the results of the Iowa caucuses in which Edwards did very well – nudging Hillary Clinton into third place – media attention was focussed on the “surprise winner” (Obama) and on the “end of an era” for the Clintons. Even the visuals on television were striking – Obama supporters celebrating, Clinton supporters looking sad. Edwards and his supporters were completely invisible.
Things got worse after New Hampshire. If anything, the Edwards campaign has become even more invisible. Some potential supporters have backed away. There have been the occasional calls on Edwards to quit. But are things really that bad?
Let’s go over a few of the facts that the mainstream media is ignoring:
1. Delegates. Oddly enough, the decision who will be the Democratic candidate in 2008 will not be decided by pollsters and pundits. It’s the delegates elected to the Democratic national convention who will have the only say in the matter. If you didn’t know better, you’d think that either Clinton or Obama would have opened a massive lead by now, with Edwards trailing a distant third. To win the nomination, a candidate needs the support of 2,209 delegates.
The actual delegate count today is as follows: Obama – 25; Clinton – 24; Edwards – 19.
In other words, each candidate has so far won about 1% of the delegates they need to win. It is a three-way tie, so far.
2. Online votes by progressives. There’s an extraordinary online poll taking place backed by progressive Democrats in six key states (California, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin). In most of the races, Clinton is in third place — sometimes fourth. Until yesterday, Edwards led in every state. Until a few hours ago, he led in California.
The Obama surge has had its effect, but according to this poll — which is a barometer of how the left-wing of the Democratic Party is feeling — it’s a race between Obama and Edwards.
3. South Carolina. The Los Angeles Times ran an article yesterday covering Edwards’ return home to South Carolina, initially noting that it followed “another distant third-place finish” for him in New Hampshire. Angry readers poured in their comments and the paper printed a correction (Edwards placed second in Iowa, not third).
But even this article, which bought into the mainstream media line that Edwards is no longer a serious or viable candidate, ended on a very upbeat note. “It was a good day back in the South for the former senator,” it said. According to the report, “This was the most intense, excited Edwards event Mehta has seen with him on the trail. His 17-minute speech, highlights of his routine stump remarks, came to a halt at least a dozen times, stopped by cheering supporters who made his remarks inaudible.”
Read this account from the same article about Edwards’ first day in South Carolina: “The noon rally had 1,000 people attending in a brick plaza on the university’s sprawling campus under robin’s-egg-blue skies. Everyone who traveled from New Hampshire was in a jovial mood, meandering around the university’s gentle lawns. But the evening rally was insane, truly a homecoming. An amazing drum line from Dreher High School warmed up the overflow crowd of more than 500 ardent supporters.”
Does that sound like a campaign in the doldrums? Like a candidate with no visible support?
4. Nevada. The decision by two unions to throw their weight behind Obama is not good news for Edwards, to be sure. But there are reports coming in from the ground that the much vaunted Obama campaign organization is not really all there (and is made up entirely of out-of-state staff), and that Edwards’ support has shown no noticeable slippage. As in Iowa, the support for the two celebrity candidates may be entirely focussed in one or two parts of the state, but Edwards’ statewide organization with strong support among trade unionists, environmentalists and progressives, may produce Iowa-like results.
5. Fundraising. Edwards is being outspent by the “corporate Democrats” (as he calls them), but that didn’t prevent him from doing very well in Iowa. Edwards doesn’t need to raise as much money as them — he just needs to raise enough to run a strong campaign. In the last three months of 2007, Edwards raised between $3 – $5 million, which is a paltry sum indeed. In the days after Iowa, he raised another $1.6 million. [Source]
Do the math — Edwards has the capacity increase his funds dramatically after any strong second-place (or third place) finish. And don’t forget the federal matching funds Edwards will be getting — estimated to be in the millions of dollars.
The mainstream media had it wrong before Iowa (Clinton was supposed to be unstoppable) and before New Hampshire (Obama’s momentum was going to sweep him to victory). They’re wrong about Nevada and South Carolina too.
John Edwards is still very much in this race, invisible or not.