Reply #80: I disagree.

[Sparkly]

Even when state polls showed Clark far ahead, the MSM gave Edwards positive coverage, for example. On potential VP picks, they'd mention the most remote of dark horses before they'd EVER say Clark's name, but they put Edwards right out there as "the man Republicans REALLY fear running against" -- uh huh, right. And at this point, looking ahead, it's common knowledge that it's all about "name recognition," which means in essence, who the media is talking about. And guess who the media is talking about? Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Mark Warner. What a surprise.

Don't think they'll start talking about General Clark anytime soon. They love him just like they loved Al Gore. They will continue to marginalize him as far as possible, rightwingers will continue to say, "Oh, HIM?!?" and the somnabulent populus will continue to ask the probing question, "Huh?"

But look at the polls among Democrats who pay attention -- DU, or Kos, or wherever. It's about getting the truth out there, as with EVERY issue from the DSM to the CIA leak to the WMD scam to the Diebold machines to everything else... The people who KNOW, know. And the MSM, in the business of deciding what people should know and shouldn't know, will continue to promote Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Mark Warner.

Just my opinion.