Further proof of bias at CNN

[UrbScotty]

This morning Late Edition had a staffer from the Clinton campaign and one from the Edwards campaign. No one from the Obama’s camp.

Then I just saw the tail end of a report by Bill Schneider in which he suggests that Dems have a choice between someone who is battle-tested and "has the scars to prove it," and someone who is unscarred and untested.

They're obviously trying to get those Dems who are watching to support Hillary.

[Swamp Rat]

1. That they hired Glen Beck is proof in itself.

[otohara]

2. They Obviously Didn't Hear Obama's Remark

about Rumsfeld and some other loyal Bushie having years of experience and look what they did?

CNN sucks.

[sandnsea]

3. zulchzulu's CNN-Gupta-Clinton connection

Pretty much says it all, as far as I'm concerned.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/54

[trayted]

4. Well, I guess there's a first time for everything, since it's usually "Clinton v. Obama" reps

Scars aren't always a good thing. Are the media trying to convince Obama to stay in the debates? If he stops attending some of them, they'll have to find another script, and they don't want to talk "Clinton v. Edwards" all of the time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. The corporate media wants Sen. Clinton.......

That doesn't mean the electorate will vote for a woman, merely that the corporate sector wants Sen. Clinton "just in case" in the chance that a Dem wins. Sometimes they have someone from the Obama camp, sometimes from the Edwards camp, but always from the Clinton camp. What that will do is it will diminish the chances of Obama and Edwards to run. Then, if the electorate refuses to vote for a woman for president, you know what will happen: a Repugnican president again.