Uh, AP?

I have a question for reporter Amy Lorentzen based on this story; tell me where John Edwards criticizes former president Bill Clinton by name (or even Sen. Hillary Clinton).

I mean, that should be the case, right? That is in your headline, after all.

You can’t do it, can you? And especially because Edwards states in your story that this is not about any one politician in particular.

No, it’s more important for you to create some imaginary dustup between Edwards and the Clintons than it is to analyze or pay more attention to what it is that Edwards is saying.

He’s talking about how both of our major political parties (but especially the Repugs) are beholden to corporate interests that continually shut us out of any benefits from this supposedly glorious global economy. I should note, though, that Bill Clinton has said in the past that he tried to ensure worker safeguards in NAFTA, but they were stripped out by congressional Republicans (and is that really so far-fetched of a possibility after all?).

Once more, here is what Edwards said…

"It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers," Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. "It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first."

…

“For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities," he said. "Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country."

…

He added: "This is not specifically just about Senator Clinton or anybody else, it's about restoring the power of the government back to its people."

I know that Edwards is getting crowded out of the spotlight a bit by HRC and Obama and has to work extra hard to grab attention. That’s a shame, because I have always sincerely believed that he is the best candidate, though I say that with no rancor towards the other two headliners among the Democratic field (and other nominees have interesting qualifications also).

But our corporate media can’t stand John Edwards. They have made that as plain as they possibly can. And that is because he has made it absolutely clear that he intends to represent us, and as he’s said, he’s fought the core constituency of the Republican Party before and won (forget these so-called fundamentalist “values voters,” the saps who get played by the GOP every 2-4 years – I’m talking about the Repugs who really call the shots in that outfit).

There’s all kinds of interesting information on John Edwards that you can access from here, but of course, don’t wait for Amy Lorentzen or the AP to tell you about it. For example, as Paul Krugman noted today…

There is, by contrast (to the Repugs), a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

But don’t look for that in an AP headline anytime soon.