Edwards is Changing His Mind About Fox?

That is what MediaBistro.com is speculating about. Several months ago former Senator John Edwards went over the deep end because of his discuss over the "bias" that he had seen at Fox News. He made it clear, no true democrat should grace the stage or studio of anything "Fox." This was odd, because he had been a guest many times until his last interview on January 23, 2007. Had there been a major shift in Fox's editorial approach at that point or was he simply looking for a way to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack?

Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici writes "shortly after last night's Democratic debate on MSNBC, Eric Schultz, Edwards's national press secretary, sent out an email blast to reporters touting the results of a Frank Luntz focus group conducted on Fox. Schultz's email follows."

From: Eric SchultzSubject: Frank Luntz Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters: EDWARDS WINNER. Edwards Declared the Winner by a Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters. On Fox News, Frank Luntz' focus group from Las Vegas of thirty undecided Nevada Democrats declared Edwards the winner. Luntz:"How many of you thought John Edwards won?" [1/2 crowd raises hand]"How many of you came in supporting Senator Edwards?" [About 3 people raise hand]"On issue after issue, we're going to show this to you tomorrow night, his language actually scored better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama." [Fox News, 1/15/08]

I'm sure the Senator has to be happy about Fox's new found "enlightenment." But can he easily have a change of heart? The jury is still out on that.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Barometers Versus Leaders

I'm not a fan of a Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, or John Edwards. I disagree with Huckabee on most issues and Edwards and Obama on virtually every issues. However, at least these guys have been extremely consistent.

They have said from day one that they intended to be candidates of change. Unfortunately the only change that will likely be found is in our pockets after they confiscate huge amounts of income as they promote the tax legislation through the rhetoric (Obama and Edwards) and through the records (Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee).

The message for change is a sound one. There are certainly things that deserve a better approach. But more government and class conflict (popular themes of each of these candidates) are not a solution.

Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton took a different approach. Romney postured himself as a bastion of stability and a force for normalcy. Clinton mentioned change but, what you really got from her was "experience" (e.g., all the funerals she attended as First Lady). Now that the experience message isn't resonating, these candidates are making dramatic shifts toward populist rhetoric. Ironically, Clinton's shift may have worked in New Hampshire (that appears to be the case at the time of the writing).

Romeny and Clinton seem to make better barometers than leaders. They have sensed a change in the political weather and are trying to accommodate the storm rather than their principles. We need principled leadership and not mere gauges of temperament.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Oprah Winfrey Gets Political

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely respect Oprah as a media personality. In fact, I can safely say she is the most successful at what she does than anyone I know. Her show is now over 20 years old and it remains among the most highly rated and, I believe she is the highest paid celebrity.

There are reasons for her success, and these are just a few of them in my opinion:

* She makes sure her visual presentation is better than anyone on day time TV. Her sets are amazing and very inviting and makes watching the program very enjoyable.

* She has excellent guest selection. After years of cultivating relationships she is able to get some of the best show participants a person will find on television regardless of time of day.

* She doesn't insult the users intelligence. She is smart and her programming highlights that, making for excellent viewing. She has even made "book clubs" popular again.

* She has remained remarkably apolitical. We are all pretty sure of her political leanings in the way she throws softballs to those with a liberal bias and tries to nail conservatives. She is, however, at least willing to have conservatives on her program. I personally believe this last characteristic is one of the most important reasons. I remember being told that you don't want to talk politics or religion with friends and she has been very careful when it comes to this area.

Until now.

Just recently Oprah endorsed a candidate. Something she hadn't done to date. She has come out in support of Barack Obama who is among the most liberal of the Democratic candidates (I put him just after John Edwards). Many are suggesting that her endorsement won't matter much, since they both appeal to the well educated and more affluent constituencies rather than the broader population that John Edwards has pursued so passionately. I disagree, I think she will help Obama reach a group that Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag -- upper middle class and well educated women.

Time will only tell whether Oprah will make that big a difference. Time will also tell whether such a move hurts her TV program. She has accumulated a lot of capital over the years, but there is no place that is quicker to lose it than in the world of media.

Note: Order Kevin Price's audio program The Accumulators, which explains the impact that the Internet is having on marketing and consumer behavior. It is available online here for only $10 plus p and h. Order Oprah's and other great programs and books by clicking here. Receive the Houston Business Review e-zine free each week by clicking here.

Democratic Leadership Council: Exit Stage Left?

The Democratic Leadership Council is having its annual convention in Nashville, Tennessee. The DLC was designed to provide a safe place for moderate and conservative Democrats to express their views and to be a force to help the Democratic Party.

A few years ago the DLC was a pretty big thing. President Bill Clinton said that the organization had everything to do with his election and believed that it should be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. Clinton, in fact, was one of the organization's founders.

The candidates for President in the Democratic party today have declared a war on conservatives and moderates today. Former Senator John Edwards likes to talk about "two Americas" in his message of class warfare. Sen. Barack Obama passionately promotes socialized medicine and has declared a war on capitalism with his threats of excessive taxation. And Hillary Clinton has been singing the praises of socialism and now declares herself a "progressive."

At the big DLC recent events, Democratic presidential candidates have always showed up. This year, not a single Democratic candidate for President is showing up. They did get Bill Clinton and Hillary may be using her man to hedge her bets, but none of the actual candidates are showing up. Not even second and third tier candidates are there. To me, this is good news for Republicans. The recent story of US politics is that Republicans run to the right in the primaries and behave more moderate in the general election. The opposite is the case for Democrats, who run left and try to shift moderate. But with the treatment they are giving the DLC, there will not likely be a moderate base waiting for them.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

Is Katie Couric a Hypocrite?

Katie Couric (photo) went through the terrible drama of losing a loved one -- her husband -- to cancer. All of us were in awe of her personal courage and wished her and her kids well through the process. Recently Elizabeth Edwards announced that her cancer is back and is not curable. The best she can hope for is to keep it at bay through various treatments.

Katie Couric interviewed Elizabeth and her Presidential contender husband, John, recently on the struggle of running for office while battling cancer. Katie told the candidate and wife that "family goes first and then work" and with that in mind, how can a candidacy for the Presidency be explained or justified. Mr. and Mrs. Edwards were shocked, mainly because the question was rude and, even more so, who it came from. Katie Couric, when her husband was diagnosed and fighting for his life, worked the very busy schedule of a professional journalist. Such individuals work 50 or 60 hours a week (and even more), and she appeared to not miss a beat.

As I indicated earlier, America supported Couric's decision as courageous. I believe it was during this time that the Today Show became unbeatable in the ratings war. So for her to be harsh to the Edwards who are choosing to fight their battle in this very personal way, it seemed inappropriate. America concluded that the battle that Katie's family had against cancer was very personal. I believe Americans feel the same about the Edwards. Some families might want to buckle down, be close, and fight it privately. Others may want to go on with their lives, while they have their lives, with gusto. This is the approach the Edwards' family is bravely taking. I believe everyone is shocked by Katie's response.

People are speculating as to why Couric was so harsh. Some say it was lashing out because of her continued rating problems, others believe it was from the deep convictions she developed because of her own personal experience, and others still believe she was merely being a tough journalist. If it is the latter, it didn't work. The Edwards quickly entered into the defensive mode and, in my opinion, the quality of the interview declined. She could have accomplished so much more from a position of empathy, rather than being holier than thou.

I'm no fan of the Edwards when it comes to their political beliefs, but I'm impressed with their courage and I commend them and others for the very personal way they are fighting this battle.

With Friends Like Danny Glover...

There have been no formal announcements as of yet, but it appears that actor Danny Glover is coming close to making a decision for whom he intends to vote for President of the United States. On a local Fox affiliate this morning, Glover was on discussing who he liked for President. He rather handily dismissed Democratic front runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as mere "glamor candidates." They are both attractive and articulate, he argued, but lacked the roots and understanding necessary to meet the needs of poor people. The candidate who does, according to Glover, is former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. He believes the multi-millionaire trial lawyer understands the needs of the poor and is the candidate the nation needs.

Getting love from Hollywood is always very popular among Democrats, so many would translate this as very good news. But Glover is extremely radical, even by Hollywood standards. Following his famous speech in which he referred to President Bush as "the devil," Hugo Chavez (see photo of Glover and Chavez above) went out and met with his good friend Glover. Chavez, the individual who wants to see the US government overthrown and many believe he is supporting the drug trade, appears to be good friends with the one time popular actor. This is the same Chavez who now runs his government by decree and with a parliament that has given him permission to govern as he so desires. Instead of good news, this could translate into the kiss of death for Edwards.

Edwards has decided to take on the radical mantle of the Democratic Party, similar to what Howard Dean attempted to do in 2004. The logic behind this is that all of the other candidates are trying to crowd the safe "middle" positions. The candidate's more radical stands are in contrast to the Edwards who tried to portray himself as a moderate in 2004. There is a saying in politics that now seems to transcend both parties to a certain extent -- campaign to the right, govern from the middle. Edwards has has failed to receive that memo.

In the end, Edwards will likely not be on the ticket at all. I have no idea what cabinet position he desires. He is quickly becoming, especially with friends like Glover, a very small footnote in US political history.