Perhaps we give the Dhimmicrat candidates too much credit for integrity or courage. After all, just say the words 'Fox News' and they all run for cover.

Thrill to the Democrat Politburo in action.

Speaking of J.C. Watts, I think he was "clean and articulate" way before clean and articulate was cool.

Cllinton News Network anyone?

Not to mention the CNN commentators included two former staffers.

Let's agree on one thing ok?
It is clear, no matter what network does the debate, the egos of those asking questions dominate.
...and yes the moguls in charge have an agenda.
I think folks would be hard pressed to say GE with all of it's defense contracts supports the "liberal" agenda. ABC is owned by Disney. Hell they refused to release Michael Moore's F 9/11.
CBS? ..Viacom. CNN? AOL Time Warner.
Do these large corporations benefit more under Republican leadership, or Democratic leadership?
What members of the FCC are pushing for more consolidation in a December decicion, Republicans or Democrats?
Anyone who thinks big media are liberal shills are listening to too much talk radio owned by the same corporations..
Here is the ownership in a nutshell..
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

Am I surprised? No.

Am I happy that there is sunlight on CNN and their BS? Absolutely!

I really enjoy seeing the credibility of the MSM further destroyed by their own BS.

Looks like the "Faux News" shoe is on the other foot.

What do you expect? This is the result of Bush's war on Journalism. Now everyone is doing the same manevuers.

For example, Bush has all but avoided traditional press conferences, when he does have them the president's aides seat friendly right-wing "journalist," such as former male escort Jeff Gannon, and then steer questions to them when things get tough. They usually ignore questioners, the don't like, by refusing to have the President or his aides call on reporters who might challenge them.

They have usually go on frinedly shows to control the message. Or use networks that give the White House favorable coverage--as the frequent appearances by Bush and Dick Cheney on Fox News programs demonstrates.

Clinton has seen it works, and is using the same tactics. What do you expect? This is why you have to condem any politician doing these things.

Of course no one here will do that with this president.

Okay, far be it from me to defend these guys, but perhaps we are using the wrong definition of undecided...

Perhaps these are undediced PRIMARY voters? I would certainly be willing to believe that...not so much the idea that any of them would vote for a republican...

Thanks Cartman.

It only took 7 posts before some assclown rode out of the goofball closet on his unicycle wearing his clown hat blaming Bush for CNN/Clinton's little blunder.

Wow, I think you should take juggling lessons yourself, oh dimmer than thou. I condemm Clinton for tring to control the press. Will you do the same for Bush?... No? Didn't think so.

Integrity is not usuall the strong suit of court jesters such as yourself... that's hypocrisy.

"Integrity is not usuall the strong suit of court jesters such as yourself... that's hypocrisy."

Ah . . . Cartman . . . you were looking in the mirror just then.

That wasn't hard for you to do, considering all the smoke and mirrors in your post number 7.

Hillary will win the nomination and, frankly, the planted questions in "debates" are only a side show even as it does illustrate well the buffoonish bias of the Old Media. That CNN would control the debate is such a fashion is not a surprise to any critical reader of news like Reed Irvine and Brent Bozell. Their archives are busting at the seams with data on this sort of behavior.

What will be truly intriguing after the primaries is what Team Hillary will do when she is eviscerated by the New Media and talk radio.

The real story will begin when the real election cycle begins. Rove (love him or hate him) was prophetic here:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/11/18/karl-roves-first-newsweek-contribution.php

Hillary is no Bill. Notwithstanding the air of entitlement, the well organized network and organization and even the anointed air of brilliance (maybe she is brilliant, but so was Einstein) Hillary lacks the basic talents necessary to win a majority of the electoral vote. Unlike Bill, she can't look a voter in the eye and make them feel like the most important person in the room. Unlike Reagan, she can't speak over the criticism because she stops everything to dissect it even if it is ineffectual. Reagan just smiled. (And ironically, she has the MSM on her side.)

The first salvo in this real election cycle debate was the attempted smear of Limbaugh (love him or hate him, it backfired because the MSM is silent about it now, because Limbaugh shoved it down their throat with the EBay auction). The primaries will have some skirmishes, but Hillary is going to receive another kind of anointing when the real election begins. For those that thought Kerry was worked over pretty hard...cowboy up, it's going to get much worse. The Swift Boat Vets...who, by the way told the truth...are but a gentle harbinger of what awaits Team Hillary.

A liberal giving speeches about integrity.......hell must be freezing over.

CartTroll,

I guess you've missed the press conferences with David Gregory, Helen Thomas, and the rest predictably and continuously treating the president like none before with rude and disrespectful assertions about his "mistakes", badgering him about the war being "lost", etc. Damn, why didn't Bush "plant" some folks as you claim??? Ohhhhhh, I get it, Gregory WAS a plant......hmmmmm. Great strategy.

If you're going to post here do yourself a favor and throw away the Media Matters bullshit talking points.

Nogo, Media Matters called. They said you've messed up their talking points, and frankly, you're embarrassing even them. (wow) They'll be faxing some new ones momentarily.

Nice try though.

Jo:

"Nogo, Media Matters called. They said you've messed up their talking points, and frankly, you're embarrassing even them. (wow) They'll be faxing some new ones momentarily."

Actually the quotes used by civil [mis]behaviour originated with the books publisher.

Move along... nothing to see here; Except a business trying to pump-up book sales before the release by providing provocative quotes taken out of possible context.

Okay, far be it from me to defend these guys, but perhaps we are using the wrong definition of undecided...

Perhaps these are undediced PRIMARY voters? I would certainly be willing to believe that...not so much the idea that any of them would vote for a republican...

They weren't off the street Democrats.

The thinking being that they have careers tied to not pissing off big figures in the Democratic Party. So they wouldn't ask anything to embarrass Hillary.

Or rather, let Hillary embarrass herself.

it is clear Hillery is the Dem choice of most media, and why not? Bill encouraged monopolies in media. As for Republicans it is Rudi and McCain. Those of us that support other candidates see it clearly.
This Sunday on meet the Russ, Hillery shill and random idiot James Carville is on.
Those of you that watch FOX have to notice its' Rudi bent..that is a reason why Mitt and others bowed out of FOX debate.
The media want Clinton(s) v Rudi...all that gossip fodder on both sides.

...and Gergen was also employed by the Clinton Administration. They were hardly unbiased analysts.

Yes, but Gergen was also employed by Republican administrations (Nixon and Reagan). In his memoirs, Bob "The Prince of Darkness" Novak says that the only thing he has ever found Gergen to be interested in is his own advancement.

So Gergen was probably the closest thing to a non-ideologue on the panel.

Funny that Nogo would call Carville a "random idiot" when both he and Carville have identical mental capacities and worldviews and they pretty say the exact same things.

Now Cartman, on the other hand, makes Nogo and Carville seem brilliant by comparison.

LiarODA315,

" guess you've missed the press conferences with David Gregory, Helen Thomas, and the rest predictably and continuously treating the president like none before with rude and disrespectful assertions about his "mistakes", badgering him about the war being "lost", etc.

You mean the same Helen Thomas the president didn't call on for THREE YEARS!!!

Take your lies some where else they don't work with me.

You mean the same Helen Thomas the president didn't call on for THREE YEARS!!!

Hey Cartman Bush has been in office for 6 years, not three, and he has taken questions from Helen Thomas, David Gregory and others not friendly to him.

But the point is, this thread is a discussion about CNN and how it is treating the Democrats. It has nothing to do with Bush at all. Why even bring him into the discussion other than to point and say "Hey look a chicken!" and then run the other way.

CartTroll

I noticed you ignored the comment on Gregory....

btw, what's your source for your "three years" claim? Media matters doesn't count.

So You think Helen Thomas deserve's to be called on because:

A. She's so damn sexy and has relevant question's?
B.She has earned some kind of special priveledge because she's been around since the pyramid's were built?
C. She's Your great great aunt?
D. Your a liberal that love's it when other liberal's of Your ilk make planted snide remark's that are intended to help the enemy's abroad?

Good reason's Cartman..

Here is the ownership in a nutshell..
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

Nogo, your link only tells part of the story. It only seems to discuss what those companies donated to Bush in 2000.

Let's expand the sample size and oh by the way let's also include money donated to the Democrats. What did those companies donate to BOTH Democrats and Republicans between 2002, 2000 and 1998? A search of Opensecrets.org soft money donations shows ...

GE:
to Democrats - $446,500
to Republicans - $859,837

Time Warner:
to Democrats - $967,905
to Republicans - $714,740

Disney:
to Democrats - $1,202,456
to Republicans - $1,097,330

Viacom:
to Democrats - $1,388,941
to Republicans - $ 61,255

News Corp:
to Democrats - $ 318,656
to Republicans - $1,414,228

Totals:
to Democrats - $4,324,458
to Republicans - $4,147,390

Nogo, it turns out that some media companies tend to favor Republicans, some tend to favor Democrats, but over all more money goes to the Democrats.

So, what was your point again?

LiarODA315,

I noticed you ignored the comment on Gannon.

Gregory had some in runs with Snow and Scotty, when has he had one with the president? I notice you posted no evidence.

"btw, what's your source for your "three years" claim? Media matters doesn't count"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas

If you google you can find about a hundred more references. If you cry I will post them for you as well.

Paul Dumb Dumb,

You are not smart enough to engage me in a debate, you just name call. This is probably due to years of inbreeding.

If you care to try and refute my points give it a try; I will enjoy making a fool of you.

"But the point is, this thread is a discussion about CNN and how it is treating the Democrats. It has nothing to do with Bush at all. Why even bring him into the discussion other than to point and say "Hey look a chicken!" and then run the other way."

You are missing the point. The point is that this administration manipulates the media. The do it often and egregiously. If Clinton is doing the same thing that is contemptible but you make your selves to be rank hypocrites when you only cry "Foul!" when one side does it. Frankly it is dangerous whenever our leaders do this as the press's job is to hold them accountable.

Your side of this debate would be far more respectable if they just said I think it is awful when Clinton does and I think it is awful when Bush does it. No one has shown that level of integrity though.

Ahhhh wikipedia, where anyone can post anything and call it fact. Figures you'd reference it.

Back to Che Guevera Junior High, the bell's ringing.

That qualifies as crying. Here is another link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/28/pressandpublishing.usnews

then there is

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/21/sitroom.03.html

then there is

www.mediagiraffe.org/artman/publish/cat_index_80.shtml

There you go asshat it is a fact: Helen Thomas was not called on in three years. Now are you going to keep ducking the rest of the argument and acting like a coward, or are you going to offer any proof of your own?... No? Move on then and consider your ass handed to you.

You are missing the point. The point is that this administration manipulates the media.

How can I be missing the point when you are the one hijacking the thread to make it an issue about Bush. Go back and check that anal probe Cartman it appears to be affecting your brain.

By the way your point about Bush not calling Helen Thomas for 3 years is silly. Considering that Bush has called on her and the first time he did she didn't really ask a question but instead went into her own diatribe about the war. She gave up her journalistic integrity a long time ago.

But the reason behind Bush's double dissing of Thomas isn't directly related to his basic contempt for White House beat reporters. Bush ignored Helen Thomas because she is no longer the Helen Thomas of yesteryear, a deadline artist writing news for tens of millions of UPI readers. She left the waning wire in silent protest, after convicted felon Rev. Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications rescued it from collapse in 2000, and took a job at the Hearst News Service. There, Helen Thomas the Pundit writes a sharply partisan syndicated White House column about what she thinks--as opposed to Helen Thomas the Reporter, who wrote about what she'd learned. How bad is the column? Only a couple of Hearst papers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Houston Chronicle, publish her pieces with any regularity.

Gregory had some in runs with Snow and Scotty, when has he had one with the president? I notice you posted no evidence.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/15/video-bush-gets-testy-with-david-gregory/

How does that fit in with your hijacked notion again?

Good Point Eric.

A president should never answer a question he doesn't like. Let's look at a press conference in your world.

Reporter: President Simpson, is it true that you lit 300 americans on fire and used them for night lights?

President: Escort him out of here I don't answer questions that I find offensive.

Reporter2: But sir: But sir isn't it the job of the press to ask you tough questions?

President:An reporter who asks questions I don't like has no integrity and has no right to ask those questions.

Reporter2 Who gets to decide that?

President: I do. Now remove ourself as well.

Ahh, we are going to get a dictatorship in 20 years if the american people sta this dumb.

Cartman said:

You are missing the point. The point is that this administration manipulates the media. The do it often and egregiously. If Clinton is doing the same thing that is contemptible but you make your selves to be rank hypocrites when you only cry "Foul!" when one side does it. Frankly it is dangerous whenever our leaders do this as the press's job is to hold them accountable.

You're absolutely right Cartman. I for one absolutely refuse to ever vote for Bush again. And since you feel so strongly about it, I fully expect you will follow me and refuse to ever vote for any of the Democratic candidates who were at the CNN debate. They all participated in manipulating the media at that debate. You don't want to be a rank hypocrite by crying foul of Bush and then voting for any of those Democrats. Doing so only brings us closer to the dictatorship you warned about.