Reply #27: Edwards and CNN

[Gelon]

I´m happy it may appear to some that the man´s getting a bit more coverage, but I´m still seeing a clear conspiracy on MSM´s part to keep him out of the picture. See the below from CNN that is on line today; you´ll note that at the bottom of the page their is no link for Edwards (but there's one for Bill...):

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/sc.primary/


And, for what it´s worth, here´s what I sent CNN after seeing this:

"I love the way CNN is doing it’s best to keep John Edwards out of the discussion. You should be absolutely ashamed of the unbelievably transparent way you have only covered the messages and campaigns of Clinton and Obama (as weak as they really are). Today’s article on the SC primary was particularly telling: at the bottom of the page, even though Edwards was mentioned in the article (and, yes, he IS in the race...), you had links for, "All about...Clinton, Obama, BILL Clinton (???),and South Carolina", but no link for Edwards. Come on! And I also have to say that Monday’s debate also clearly demonstrated how much CNN was at pains to ensure that Obama got the most face time. His answers were typically 3 minutes long, when the rule mandated 1 minute, and he was allowed to get by with it by your stooge, Wolf Blitzer. I never had much regard for Blitzer as a personality or news person, but that debate showed more than ever how bad he is when he’s not scripted. Man, he sure was lousy at controlling the unfocused ramblings of Clinton and Obama, and he and Malvo (or however you spell her name - who cares?) sure ignored Edwards or re-framed questions posed to the other 2 before he had a chance to respond. CNN is really poor and I’ll get my news from Al Jazeera (much better reporting anyway), or ANYWHERE else from now on. Shame on you!"

I hope Edwards blows the media pundits outta the water in today's primary. They were wrong about NH. I gotta felling they´re wrong about SC even though they´re hedging their bets.