CNN (Clinton News Network) is just as biased as Fox News

CNN is just as biased for Hillary as Fox News is biased for Guiliani. I think it's despicable that CNN only seems to find former Clinton cronies to be the 'unbiased' commentators for the Democratic candidates. Carville, Begala, Brazile only prop up Hillary and trash the other candidates, but giving the appearance of being fully objective, while they're anything but.

At least Fox didn't ask Kerik to come on there and provide commentary on Republican candidates.

I just want to pinch your widdle cheek.

Oh my gosh. :rofl:

Always cite your sources.
:rofl:

Congrats!

and make yourself some hot chocolate.

Seriously, if it wasn't for NPR, my daily commute would be incredibly uninformative...

and cast an uncritical, cheerleading voice for the PNAC Neocon warmongers ....

They have yet to be held to task for that debacle ...

For the record: I don't find much of PBS news to be any better ... some is, but much isnt ....

There was plenty of debate going on back then.

I mean, they did present the other side...that I remember. But that doesn't make them Pro-war--it just doesn't make them Air America.

I thought we WANTED unbiased news sources that present both sides of each issue...

There was VERY LITTLE response from cooler heads .....

I listened for years to NPR ...... but I was absolutely disgusted by the constant PRO PNAC drumbeat they provided .....

And no: as far as I am concerned: Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney, and other PNACers have NO PLACE in a balanced debate about war .... They should be a minor voice, and NOT the primary voice, and yet they were plastered all over the airwaves, thanks in part to NPR, and presented as 'legitimate' political commentators ... but they were actually ARCHITECTS of that war, and not mere pundits .... NPR pffered them as run of the mill commentators ... their involvement with policy making was NOT fully disclosed .....

From that moment forward: I have put NPR on button 6, and havent pressed it ....

Like you, I LOVE and couldn't survive mornings without NPR, and PBS, what can you say? It's a silly thing that some people here believe them to be "conservative." Only on another planet. No, they're not agenda-driven like Pacifica, but they are balanced and provide deeper perspective on issues of all kinds. But, truly, there are some here that wouldn't be happy with anything but an English simulcast of Radio Havana.

I would resent it more if I really cared what such critics thought ..... but I dont ....

FYI: I flipped off the channel, and stopped listening to ALL political radio ..... ALL of it

So your assertion that those who reject NPR because they are not 'Radio Havana', instead of NPR's obvious warmongering editorial content these last years, is completely and utterly WRONG ....

Perhaps you live in a Red State where NPR seems like it IS Radio Havana ........ Go ahead and listen away .... I have NEVER asked anyone to NOT listen to NPR ...

But you sure as hell WONT demand I listen to it, nor will you get away with cheap ass insults as to WHY I dont listen to them anymore .....

The Clinton campaign was behind that one. So it did not surprise me one bit that this CNN debate in LV turned out this way. They are gagging us with Hillary in Nevada.

John Edwards 2008

Rupert Murdoch is financing Hillary and Ghouliani.

The fact is that all these corporations have their interests, and this is the reality of modern politics. The debates THEY show are the ones we see, so like it or not this is the new reality. Business is politics, and its obvious that corporate support is immensely important in order to win anything.

Like it or not, Hillary is leading because she's at home in this framework and she knows how to play it to win. This doesn't make her Bush by any means...I mean, just LOOK at her, LISTEN to her speak...She's balanced, articulate, intelligent, compassionate - these are her external qualities. Then look at Bush. He's bumbling smirking, inarticulate and mean, these are his external qualities. Each thing conforms to its own essence, that which is apparent in everything that that comes from it. Hillary will not be Bush even though she operates in the same world, that's plain for me to see.

with envy.

At Daily Kos, they're discussing this very topic now:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/17/84954/402?detail=f

We're not the only ones who're disgusted at the blatant bending over for Hillaryworld by CNN. It's been a story in newspapers
like The New York Times, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3729758

She'll make a good strong president.

If Republicans watched CNN and Dems watched Fox, the only difference is that they'd switch the person they're pushing.

when you accept as fact the right wing lie that any branch of the media shows preference for ANY Democrat. I was there. I watched for 8 years as CNN and their "reporters" did everything they could to discredit, savage and slime Bill and Hillary Clinton and anyone connected to them. Your premise is an insult to all of us who experienced the truth of CNN's approach to the Clintons.

If you have a beef, its with the Nevada Democratic party who apparently stacked the decks in giving out tickets to the debate.

Blitzer spent the first half hour interviewing John Edwards - who was being very calm and reasonable, addressing the issues and answering the questions.

Then Wolf spent the next half hour talking with three broads from the "best political team on television" and they were all agreeing with each other that John Edwards is "too angry" and this is why Democratic voters don't like him.

It's like they couldn't have Edwards on the show without making sure that all the viewers know that he is too angry, outside the mainstream, and has zero chance of becoming the nominee (their conclusions, not mine).

I guess the only way they could make it better for Hillary would be if they refused to allow any of the other candidates on the show. But then the viewers might suspect that something is up.