Did Wolf Blitzer say anything offensive? Cause if not, this isn't really news ... Jack Cafferty is a cantankerous old geezer who is cranky and probably forgot his 'rhoid donut to sit on.

And the other two are not objective news reporters like Blitzer is supposed to be.

As for the media in general having an anti-Clinton bias? What else is new? Want to see some bias, watch MSNBC between the hours of 5pm and 10pm.

See the Election Center (After Lou Dobbs) and the AC 360 show for All the Barack Obama praising you would ever like to hear. Economic collapse, what economic collapse

He's a snotty talking person who wants a job and the higher the ratings, the more job security, maybe more money.

Wolf can be a very good commentator at times.

They should report facts and THIS IS NOT A FACT:  Hillary will do anything to win.

THAT is a talking point from opponents.  And it's ridiculous.

CAN YOU BEGIN  to imagine the outrage if the Clinton campaign or pundits said, "Obama will do anything to win"???  What are they insinuating?  

But no, the pundits have taken up the Republican smear machine that Hillary is a vile, evil (yes evil) person.  

I am happy to say that I've known people to do evil things, but I cannot say I've ever known an evil person.  Charles Manson - nuts or something.  

Christ said, "Why do you call me good?"  

For me, it's like this.  If a person does so much good, it is hard to see anything BUT good.  If a person does so much evil, it is hard to see anything BUT evil.  But for my religion, Christ gave his life and his life's blood for that person.  If God wants to call a person evil, that's different.  I ain't heard God on the TV.

So you know something that's not in the public record?  Do tell.

Oh, and evidence.  Evidence would be good.

It's just a preview of what they will be doing to Obama in the fall. Except he has not been fending off their attacks for the last fifteen years.

I changed the channel. Until recently I didn't even know what channel Fox News was on Direct TV. Now I find myself switching to it just to get away from the Obama love fests on CNN and MSNBC.

CNN will do and say anything for Obama to win.  They sold their reputation long time ago, but for what.!  I don't know.

That's not a "position," it's a statement of then-existing fact.  You might make a lawyerish argument that it implied she wasn't going to fight in the future to overturn that fact, but that's going kind of far in implying unstated things into an answer to an interview question.

This is especially true since it would've been absolutely stark raving insane for Clinton to have taken the position at that time that there was no way Michigan was ever going to be seated.  She had huge leads over Obama and Edwards in the MI polls at that time, but EVEN OBAMA AND EDWARDS weren't saying anything so foolish as "Michigan's delegates will never be seated."

You're really ssttrreeeeeeettcchhiiiiinngg with that one.  A child would understand that's not a "position."  The words "it's clear" unambiguously signal lthat she is interpreting outside events, not issuing an opinion or taking a stand.

In a way I agree most with the first poster, so what is new? When we have to go to Fox to get away from HIllary hate and catch something with pictures, it's really creepy. Isn't there any protest we can get up to let them know? I think the main problem is their demographic and the fact that their main sponsors seem to be gong after guys with erectile dysfunction or need male enhancement, whatever that means. Anyway, it's damn creepy.  

I stopped watching CNN long long ago.

So embarrassing what Cnn has become.  What, a bunch of old has been Conservatives, huh?

I remember how Cafferty was putting down Al Gore on prospects of running.  This loser that has been down graded to answer emails and ask a question to keep a job, is putting down Al Gore, Nobel Laureate, World Leader, Environmental Champion and Millionare.  Yeah, right Jack.

Hillary wants to win? OH NO, we should hold an election...oh wait, that what it is.  So if that's bad, does this mean it's good that Obama is going to lose?

They actually are repeating talking points that it's a bad thing that Hillary want Michigan and Florida to get their delegates?  Well, if Obama and them feel that way, why doesn't Obama just turn over Two Large States worth of delegates if that's not what he's in this for.  Oh wait, he doesn't have 2 large states to give.  That's OK, we'll take the two largest he can offer.  Then we really won't have to worry about him wanting to win this thing.

I've stopped watching CNN. It has turned into a 24/7 sitcom. The only MSNBC show I watch is Morning Joe.

I'm an Obama guy and I stopped watching CNN a few weeks ago.  They exist only, ONLY to get ratings.  When Obama is up, they'll prop up Hillary to keep the game going; when Obama is down, they'll prop up Obama to keep the game going.  

Networks like CNN, MSNBC, Faux News and the biggies desperately want to have a brokered convention in Denver.  They want this as much as Gollum wanted the ring in the Lord of the Rings; they can see ratings and revenue and a chance to be another Walter Kronkite.  

So yes, definitely, let's boycott all television news outlets.  I'm sick of the spin they give to suit their own purposes.  I'm sick of Buchanan, Blitzer, Matthews, O'Reilly (sorry, I still like but don't watch Olbermann, not until the nomination is set) and all the rest.

I look in on CNN once in a while to see if they have changed.  Lou Dobbs is really the only one I spend anytime on this season, just because he seems not to be so partisan and is actually giving Clinton a good shake.  But Cafferty is the ugliest hater of them all.  He is just downright nasty and an obvious Hillary Hater.  The media has really turned completely away from being the beacon of Democracy that they were once so much a symbol of.  It is sad what a mockery of journalism and the press, CNN and MSNBC have made themselves.

and that goes a million times more for MSNBC.

The coverage of this election has been disgraceful and embarrassing.  

Don't make up outlandish crap about a Democrat.  Those are fighting words to me.

The pledge was not to "campaign or participate."  "Campaign" is extensively defined in the DNC rules, and all campaigns acted on the assumption that the definition of "Campaign" covered the phrase "campaign or participate."  The easiest example of that is that, of course, none of the candidates withdrew from Florida and none of the candidates withdrew from Michigan until a hasty last-minute move, apparently concerted, by several campaigns.

By the way, you can google til your heart's desire--I know, because I've already done so--and you won't find a single campaign who said at the time the candidates withdrew from Michigan that they were compelled to do so by the language of the pledge.  What you will find is several analysts who made contemporaneous suggestions like this one:

CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider suggested the Democrats who withdrew may have calculated that it was simply in their best political interest to do so.

"If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

Whaaaat?

Your still WATCHING CNN and Jack Caff's mentally ill HillaryHating twisted manipulative "comments"
 and "questions of the day". Been on stike for months

Strike? absolutely. Could we please include NBC? It think getting and distributing the video is an excellent idea. So much misinformation gets spewed out there, and no one challenges it! Thanks for the diary!!!