John Edwards was the best candidate in the democratic party. He lost because of the media.

I'm glad that you were able to find a favorite candidate out of the 2008 primary season. However, the fact that he may have been your favorite candidate does not mean that John Edwards was the best candidate in the Democratic Party. Naturally, as your favorite you may feel this way. I am an expert on the candidates of the Democratic Party, having met all of them except for Gravel. I went to more than 140 presidential events during the Iowa Caucuses while working for a nonpartisan nonprofit and paid close attention to the platforms and speeches of many of the candidates. There are two possible ways to evaluate whether or not a candidate was the best candidate in that party. The first and foremost, and also the most obvious is how that candidate does during the primaries. The second is whether that candidate was the best possible candidate to actually be the president of the United States. To address the first possible consideration, John Edwards did not retain much support in the early states. A sad fact, giving that he is from South Carolina, and effectively spent two years in Iowa, he couldn't mobilize much of an effort to do well in either state. While Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were serving the people with their offices in the government, John Edwards was politician with no true obligations on his time, and tens of millions of dollars stuffed in his mattress. To address the second statement, John Edwards was not the best possible person to be president out of the Democratic perspectives. Senator Joseph Biden was the best possible president of the United States of America to run in the Democratic Party. You do, however, state that John Edwards was a better candidate than Both Obama and Hillary Clinton, which may be true. But when it comes to it, all three of them can't hold a candle to Joseph Biden. Everything is just a matter of taste. Edwards also lacked foreign policy experience, and significant political experience. He has had nothing to do with shaping the policies of the United States as a one term Senator. He and Obama have some of those things in common. You learn from experience. As a Senator, Edwards did not fight poverty, he did not successfully achieve a Universal Health Care plan, and best of all, he didn't actually fight big corporations. How many picket lines did Edwards appear on while he was actually a Senator? Where was his harsh criticisms of corporate polices while he was actually in the Senate? You can say a lot of stuff when you have nothing to lose. Edwards was a charlatan, at best. He has not kept a single promise he made, including the fact that his non-Iowan staffers caucused in spite of a pledge signed by their campaign stating that persons living in Iowa for the expressed purpose of working for presidential campaigns would not caucus. The Media did a very poor job of covering the race. However, in the state of Iowa, Edwards received a whole lot of media coverage, and compared to the best possible president, Joe Biden, he received a great deal of national press recognition, as they made the habit of talking about the top three candidates in national polls. Yes, the media failed this nation, but if they had done their job, John Edwards still wouldn't have been the main focal.