outright left wing media bias

The MSM are dems and are only interested in their own.

What's so hard to swallow about the whole loony mess with the entire media's extreme liberal bias is that in Socialist countries, they muzzle the media without exception.  It's so hard to watch an entire industry of basically grown-up tattle-talers (they age...not mature) try to influence through repetition, for the end result of the loss of their own freedoms.  Insanity on display, eh!

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Sort of related to their liberal bias, I think they assume that the Democrat nominee, whoever it turns out to be, will eventually be the President. The Republican process doesn't really matter, in their minds, right now.

Same reason that they don't start televising golf tournaments until Tiger Woods' tee time.

First they have to find out which democrat has the best chance of winning the presidential election.  They'll hype them to the max and then float a little dirt about each and see how it affects their polling numbers.   Once they find out who is the most electable, they will throw their full weight behind that candidate and you will never hear a single peep about any of the "chosen one's" negatives.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

The MSM is covering / pushing the Dem. candidates ad nauseum because these Inexperienced Obama/Hillary/Edward candidates can't hold a Candle to the broad based experience of most of the Republicans.   I'm Expecting the NFL to announce that one of the Retiring Coaches WIFE is going to take over an NFL team, after all, some wives have "been in the NFL" for 30 yrs. 

The Dems put up some pretty pitiful Candidates........Did you KNOW one of the Candidates is ......

Monica Lewinsky's, Ex-Boyfriends Wife...?  

How Remote from a REAL Political Candidate can you get ?  The Dems are showing us....the First Black Senator we elect, suddenly gets his First Term as Senator interrupted by shoving him in the presidency race....based upon what record of Accomplishments ?

Crowd control ?  As a former Soccer Referee I've had more Experience with Crowds.....half of them angry crowds. 

 "Barack Obama is a Powerful Speaker—And so is My Bose Bass Amp"  Doug Giles

They will argue that it's because they are both firsts, however... 

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

I chose other because I believe the media wants the Dems to win and has no interest in a Republican win.

Which raises the question, are the MSM un-biased objective journalists first, or are they political party activists first?

In Iraq, they claim to be objective journalists which is why they can't take sides, though their form of not taking sides seems to mean that they need to be more negative and denigrate our side to prove they are objective.

The American public is no longer given the facts or the truth so that they can sort out what they believe and what they don't.  The MSM now blatantly uses their news stories as Op Ed pieces and they use their Op Ed pieces as Democratic position papers.

They abuse and misuse the term Journalist to where it has lost all meaning and due to their political activism, they no longer have the ability to be objective journalists. 

I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)

Actually while I like to blame the MSM for almost anything, it is easier and more interesting to cover a 2 person dogfight that a 5 person
tussle

When have they not given more airtime to the Democrats over the Republican in any election process?

I recall watching the 92 campaign on tv. This was before I had either cable tv or internet. So I had to rely on the network news to provide me with info. The very first opening story in all news broadcasts would be the Presidential campaign. It was always the same format. First they'd do a story on the Republican (Bush) campaign, then they'd do a story on the Democrat (Clinton) campaign. It didn't escape my notice how much airtime they provided with the Democrats, and how scant, little, airtime they gave to the Republicans. Their report on the Republican campaign would last somewhere from only 5 seconds to 30 seconds of airtime. Then they'd switch over to their report on the Democrat campaign, which would last for a few minutes at the very least.

One time they did this, they had a clip of Dan Quayle standing beside a podium. Not behind it. Beside it. Just a silent clip. So I have no idea if this clip was before or after his speech. It didnt matter. They showed this clip of Quayle with no sound, and the newscaster in a voice over narration, telling us that Quayle was campaigning and gave a "clinton bashing speech". This report on the Bush campaign ran for all of 5-10 seconds. Then they switched over to the Clinton campaign where they showed Clinton giving a rousing speech before a bunch of supporters. This time, no voiceover narration. Clinton was allowed to speak for himself for a full 2 and a half minutes.

I also noticed how they always reported on the GOP campaugn first, and the Dem campaign second, thereby always giving the Dem campaign the last word, the final response to whatever the Republicans had to say. At first I gave the networks the benefit of the doubt and thought that this was because Bush was the incumbent and Clinton was the challenger. Fast forward 4 years later to 1996. Now the Democrat is the incumbent and the Republican (Bob Dole) is the challenger. How did the networks arrange their news stories on the Presidential campaign? Republican campaign first, Democrat campaign second. Again giving the Clinton (Democrat) campaign the last word.

 The clintons are baiting Obama and he has to date stayed above the fray but the screeching of the old guard[sharpton,jackson,et al]may bring chao's with lack of coverage from the media.

the article below will cast light on the depth of hell the clintons are willing to go to.

Bill & Hillary: Union-Busters?

By Ronald A. Cass

Fresh from the Listening Tour, the Hillary I Know Tour, the Watch Me Cry Tour, and the Clintons for Change Tour (traveling the Back to the Future Express), the dynamic duo rolled into Nevada with a new message that should be music to conservative ears, but not an easy tune for them to carry: Let's Break the Unions!

The Clintons now tell Nevada caucus participants: don't follow the union bosses' directions. Think for yourselves. Act as individuals. Just because a union's governing body decides to support, say, Barack Obama is no reason to follow along blindly. After all, what right do union bosses have to tell the rank-and-file how to behave, to dictate your political choices? Not that there's anything wrong with that when it's the AFSCME union endorsing Hillary, but it's downright Orwellian mind-control when leaders of the local Culinary Workers Union pick the wrong gal (or guy). That's why Hillary shamelessly went door to door in Las Vegas imploring Culinary Workers to ignore union directions while Bill lectured workers on independent thinking.

After getting Hillary endorsements from the leaders of 13 unions representing 6 million members, thanks to relentless pursuit of every establishment credential they could find, the Clintons responded with outrage that a local union with 60,000 members could prefer her primary opponent. As Bill said, this shows the "establishment organization" is with Senator Obama, while the "insurgents" are with Hillary. (Somehow I missed Hillary's days as a grass-roots community organizer - which must have come somewhere between her stints as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the U.S., great places to hone those bottom-up organizing skills!)

That endorsement sparked the recognition that union bosses are elitists whose power hurts workers. In his best, red-faced, finger-pointing, hoarse-shouting style (right on cue for the 10-year anniversary of Matt Drudge's exposure of the Monica story), Bill told listeners that union leaders "they think they're better than you are" and challenged workers to buck the unions.

Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.

**********

The new call for independence for union members runs smack into the ingrained view of Democratic union-backers that workers can't stand up for themselves as individuals. That's the idea all pro-union laws are built on - individual workers need unions to stand up for them. For 75 years, Democrats have insisted that workers can't decide whether to stay out of a union other workers have chosen, that workers can't negotiate for themselves on issues within the union leadership's portfolio, and even that workers can't decide whether they want to have their money go to a union, much less direct how it's spent.

Conservatives long have challenged the assertions that workers are better off having someone tell them what they should do, having unions speak for workers, take money from them, and spend money on political causes (and, implicitly, candidates) that the union leaders favor. But Democrats, backed by huge infusions of union money, keep a system in place predicated on just the opposite view.

The system works well for the union leaders and the candidates they support. Laws pushed by Democrats have allowed union taxation of worker wages to support leaders' spending priorities. Unions collect $8 billion or so annually through involuntary assessments. One court, looking at union spending, found that about 80 percent of union collections went not to worker representation and collective bargaining but to political activity. Something like 95 percent of this spending goes to help Democrats. In the 2000 elections, unions spent an estimated $800 million on attack ads and other political activities to promote Democrats, including Senate candidate Hillary Clinton (a special favorite of the United Auto Workers Union). The AFL-CIO alone will spend $200 million on the 2008 races.

That's not small change, even for a party now obsessed with change.

The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Communications Workers v. Beck ruled that union members have the right not to support political spending they don't agree with. But one of President Bill Clinton's first acts was to repeal an executive order from President George H.W. Bush implementing the Beck decision (by requiring federal contractors post notices telling workers they aren't required to give money to unions for political spending). Bill and the union establishment saw no reason even to let workers know they have the right to think for themselves when that threatens the Democrats' prime engine of political sponsorship.

But that was then.

**********

The Clintons are nothing if not flexible. Bill can lie straight-faced about anything with enough charm to almost make you believe it, and Hillary will morph into any character - from tough cookie to cookie baker - to get votes. Yesterday, she was the candidate of experience. Today, she's the candidate of change, even if that just means she gets the Oval Office and Bill gets to have tea with the other spouses.

Few people bother to challenge Bill and Hillary's reversals and revisions - like backing a lawsuit challenging the location of caucus sites in Las Vegas that their team helped pick when they thought the Culinary Workers Union would endorse Hillary. Blatant self-interest and bold infidelity to facts are simply part of the package we've all come to know. But the former and would-be future First Couple continues to push the envelope.

In the last couple of weeks, comments by the Clintons and close supporters have shown astounding disregard for anyone and anything in their way. Andrew Cuomo (of the famously sensitive political family) said that Senator Obama can't "shuck and jive" his way to the White House. Charlie Rangel called Obama "absolutely stupid" - for something Obama never said. Bob Johnson elliptically reminded voters of Obama's youthful drug use (what he was doing in Chicago in the 1970s that we really can't say in public), then explained that referred to Obama's community organizing. Uh-huh. Hillary claimed she doesn't want race or gender to play a role in the campaign - so long as women understand she'd be the first woman to break the "hardest glass ceiling" and that sisterhood trumps brotherhood.

For liberals, the assault on union leadership has to be the cherry topping off this sundae of sloppy reasoning, shameless self-promotion, callous indifference to fact, and calculated insinuation.

For the rest of us, maybe this one time - just this once - we should take Bill and Hillary at their word. Let's show that new bipartisan spirit. Take up their cause. Roll back rules that support union politicking. Let workers spend their own money and pick their own candidates. And see how Democrats really like union members exercising their independence.

Ronald A. Cass is President of Cass & Associates, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of "The Rule of Law in America" (Johns Hopkins University Press).

They're still trying to either ignore or downplay the GOP candidates
because they know that the GOP (and all of it's constituents and
candidates) are a major threat. When the time comes they'll try
to misrepresent them and then go into outright attack mode. They're
just sticking to the playbook.

I realize part of it is the usual liberal bias on the part of the MSM, but I honestly think the MSM did not expect the Obama campaign to do as well as it has to this point. No one did.

The democrat side of the presidential race was never supposed to be a real contest. Conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton was going to essentially run away with it. It hasn't turned out that way.

I have to admit, Obama has run a pretty good campaign, if only in that he has exhibited no perceptable fear of the vaunted Clinton Machine. This is due to either above-average courage, outright ignorance, or perhaps something in between. Obviously, Barack Obama's FBI file (if one even existed at the time) was not among those that turned up in the Clinton White House.

I also believe there are a large number of people in the MSM who just don't like Hillary Clinton, as I have seen far more negative reports on her than I expected to see.

The democrat race is also far more interesting to watch than the republican one, as the latter is nothing more than two stodgy RINOs attempting to convince conservatives they are the second coming of Ronald Reagan, while spitting in those same conservative's faces. Who would want to cover that?

Perhaps that will change if Fred Thompson does well in South Carolina.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe

 they hope that by ignoring it the GOP will go away.

 The media has to pay attention, to the Democrats, because they're apt to implode at any moment. The press seems to do a good job of covering for them; but it certainly takes a lot of diligence.

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

I voted other.  I reasoned that (1) the MSM desperately wants a Democrat to succeed Bush, so they're obsessing over them; (2) whoever emerges from the Democrat race will have a name recognition advantage over whatever Republican emerges; and (3) someone is a real threat to Hillary's coronation, and they know the Clintons fight like cornered wild animals when threatened, which will be as entertaining as a gladiator match in the Colisseum in ancient Rome-- and in the same way. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.