Gee, I wonder why Hillary is so ahead in the polls? The corporate media butt kiss.

[Armstead]

All of the candidates did reasonably well tonite. Including Hillary. None of them did horribly.

But to watch CNN, you'd think it was a Clinton knock out. You'd alsoi think that the only tweo otehr people on stage were Obama and Edwards -- and they're only there AS HER OPPONENTS.

And people wonder why she is ahead in the polls?

She didn't drool tonite, so it was therefore HER NIGHT TO SHINE, according to the CNN pundits.

Maybe, just maybe, if the MSM actually covered the election as though it were a bunch of people presenting themselves and their platforms -- rather than a friggin beauty contest/WWF Match/Football game, voters might be able to come to their own conclusions.

[Clintonista2]

1. She's ahead in the polls because

People support her.

[Armstead]

3. People are told they support her -- Not told about anyone else except in comparison

[Clintonista2]

4. Where did you buy your magic mind-reader?

I've been looking for one.

[Armstead]

9. Wal Mart

2 for $1

[emilyg]

8. Gee - nobody told me.

[TomClash]

2. This is so revolting I may not even vote in the General Election

. . . let alone work for her.

[aquart]

5. Perhaps you should join a party you do support.

Why should you be unhappy? But the "hold my breath till I turn blue and then you'll be sorry" approach to voting in the general election is not impressive.

[TomClash]

12. I'm not trying to be "impressive"

I thought the debate was poorly handled by Blitzer and the post-debate Hillary coverage is nauseating.

[Donnachaidh]

6. one woulda thunk Wolfie was her prom date!

Heavily slanted to showcase *the media darling* :sarcasm:

And Kucinich was being heavily shut out. No one can say this was an impartial group of journalists. No way.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. With all her shills on for the post debate spin. trying to cover her mediocre performance.

[sandnsea]

10. Yes this is pathetic

I've never seen it quite so thick as tonight.

[AtomicKitten]

11. It is glaringly apparent the Clintons hold sway over much that goes down.

This was never more apparent than when Eliot Spitzer put the kibosh on his DL plan to save H. Clinton further embarrassment.

It's good to be the pre-ordained queen, if you can get the work.

[rinsd]

13. The MSM is ridiculous. But Hillary has real support.

You can say its name recognition and I will say yes. People know her and many support her. Many don't. Such is life when you live 15 years in a high profile.

But I agree having 2 people with direct Clinton ties going overboard about what was a spirited but ultimately good showing by all debate is just another example of the shallow nature of cable news.

[incapsulated]

14. Please, people LOVED the MSM last week

When they were bashing her brains in.

[Armstead]

15. Not me

I think the bashing was as inane as their pumping her up.

The superficiality of the coverage is staggering.

[Karmadillo]

16. The last two weeks of Hillary coverage was butt kissing?

nt

[Armstead]

18. The Clinton obsession is butt kissing

From the start it's been Clinton vs. everyoneelse.

She's like the rich kid who was born on third base. They've been fluffing up her candidacy since 2000.

When people with long experience like Dodd and Biden are instantly relagated to "also-rans" in favor of a one-term mediocre Senator, I'd call that giving her an unfair advantage.

[Karmadillo]

19. Wasn't there a recent study that showed the corporate media had been giving Obama much more positive

coverage than other Democrats? If I remember correctly, Hillary had received more negative coverage than positive coverage.

[Karmadillo]

20. The link: Kevin Drum notes the press isn't in love with the Democrats, it's in love with Obama

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012423.php

MISCELLANEOUS CHARTS....The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report a couple of days ago showing that so far during the 2008 campaign season, Democrats have gotten more favorable coverage than Republicans. Now, maybe you believe this and maybe you don't, but what caught my eye was the reason Democrats got such favorable coverage. Two words: Barack Obama. The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

[Armstead]

21. Don;t know of that study....

Obama did a get a lot of ultra-positive coverage in the past.

But, even with the criticisms, the MSM has been shilling for Hillary since 2000. Remember 2004, when the Big Question was whether Hillary would run, and it was automatically assumed that she'd be the candidate to beat back then?

[earthlover]

22. Biden was senator before BILL Clinton was out of college!

So it is hillary that has experience and can hit the ground running?

What is wrong with this picture?

[surfermaw]

17. My husband has told me CNN is just another Fox

Tonight after watching Wolf Blitzer, I have come to the same conclusion. I knew before th debate started Wolf Blitzer would continue to lay it to Edwards, I said to my self when they said he would be on the end, it was about to start. Oh well Blitzer, even with your treatment of Edwards, he is going to win Iowa, could be you just helped him.