Unbelievable! CNN narrows the Field of Candidates!

Minor adjustment and edit by GreyHawk. See comments...

Revised by Carol, No changes but update.I had a series of physical mishaps last week and so was not ontop of all the exciting (and otherwise) posts. The way that CNN deliberate shapes the political debate is not only infuriating but dangerous. By substituting lies and trivia and a good dose of horse rate mentality into their coverage, they no doubt succeed in channelling voters thinking, even I imagine critics such as myself. So I am front-paging this now to bring more intention to the situation.

I have done this by using the "revision" button. I have changed nothing in the text. I am not sure how this works but we shall all see.

Once again in the Corporate Media makes an "Executive Decision", about who America should see as their Viable Choices:

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney

Only these Candidates were the Focus of the latest CNN Poll

Where is John Edwards in this Poll?

(for that matter where is Ron Paul?)

[Edwards has done better than Giuliani, by a long shot!]

So much for Free Speech! So much for the Democratic Process playing itself out! So much for letting the People decide.

The Media Executives apparently feel it's their Constitutional Right to narrow down your choices for you -- They Know What's best for us!

(Or is it really they know what's best for them?)


New Poll results from that COM (Corporate Owned Media) with the "best political team on Television":

CNN Opinion Poll

Interviews with 1,033 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on January 9-10, 2008. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

FOR RELEASE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 12 AT 2 PM

Here is a typical Question from this Poll, using their "filtered" version of reality:

11. For each of the following candidates, please tell me whether you will definitely vote for that person in November if they won their party's nomination, whether you might consider voting for that person, or whether you will definitely not vote for that person in November. (RANDOM ORDER)

Definitely For | Consider Voting for | Definitely Not Vote for | No Opinion

Hillary Clinton 37% 19% 43% *
Barack Obama 30% 32% 38% *
John McCain 22% 35% 43% *
Rudy Giuliani 19% 25% 55% *
Mike Huckabee 15% 31% 52% 1%
Mitt Romney 13% 25% 62% 1%

A search of this entire Poll, shows Edwards Name is NOT mentioned anywhere! ... (apparently he "was abducted by Aliens"!)


Did Edwards quit Running?

Did Edwards do worse than Giuliani or Romney?


What gives CNN the Right to Censor Edwards from this Opinion Poll?

(An Opinion Poll that the Media Bobble-heads, will no doubt repeat at nauseum for the next week, too.)


Could it be that CNN did not quite like the Results, when Edwards was included in their last Poll?



CNN poll: Edwards DESTROYS GOP candidates
(with graphs!)
by BruinKid - Thu Dec 13, 2007



Maybe CNN was worried about another strong showing by Edwards, if he was included in their Jan. Poll?

This is simply Outrageous!

No matter which Candidate you support, the Media should not be empowered to make arbitrary decisions like this!

In my opinion, if John Edwards received half the coverage that Obama and Clinton have, the results of those 1st two elections would have been very different.

The corporate media blackout of John Edwards gets worse

by JedReport - Sat Jan 05, 2008

The Constitution vested the power to pick our Candidates with us -- WE the People

And NOT Them the Corporate Media!



Where will this Media's "streamlining of reality" end?

They sold us the Iraq War, with a smile and a cheer -- what will they try to sell us next?



If you care about Free Speech and a free and open and fair Democratic Process -- Please let CNN know how you feel:

CNN@cnn.com


while your at it give these other sponsors of the "powers that be" a piece of your mind too:

hardball@msnbc.com

today@nbc.com

nightlynews@nbc.com

evening@cbsnews.com

wnn@abcnews.com

viewerservices@msnbc.com



It really is time to take OUR Country Back!

John Edwards is right: Enough is Enough!


thank you.

--------- [some Fun Facts] -------------

Current Delegate Count

Obama 25
Clinton 24
Edwards 19
Kucinich 0

Romney 21
Huckabee 14
McCain 12
Thompson 8
Paul 4
Hunter 1
Giullani 1

http://mydd.com/

Looks like Corporate Media-Bias to me!

-------------------

0
No votes yet

Comments

You may have a sense of my feelings about these issues. To be sure, I put them into a rather succinct summary last week, or so, in case you missed it:

...

What's wrong with the picture on your HDTV?!

The real problem is that the only allowable change of the system will be by those the system has pre-certified.

...

-----
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

then they really have no purpose. Looks like CNN could adopt the old FOX tagline ... "fair and balanced".

-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin

Is it any wonder the American people are tuning out?

It seems to me that Edwards has a clear shot at winning the nomination if Clinton and Obama end in a virtual tie, with Edwards showing a strong third. He can be the king maker but alternative the super delegates, Democratic senators, reps and governors also have a vote as do national committee members and party leaders. Moreover delegates have the the right to change their vote at the convention.

So CNN et al leaving Edwards out of the picture makes it even uglier.

Here is a very interesting explanation of the process:

Delegates from the major political parties are involved in the selection of candidates for President of the United States by such assemblies as a convention. Some of the officials involved in the process are called superdelegates.

What exactly is a "delegate" and why are they so important to the candidates running for president?

Nomination process

To become the Democratic nominee for president, a candiate has to be nominated by amajority of delegates attending the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver, Colorado, in August 2008.

A candiate has to win a simple majority of 2,025 delegates out of a total of 4,049 towin the 2008 nomination. State primaries and caucuses select 3,248 "pledged" delegates, who are obligated to vote for the candidate their state chose.

The number, however, could change if delegates leave office, leave the party, cannot make it to the convention or if the national party changes what states to include in the final count.

To become the Republican nominee for president, a candidate has to be nominated by a majority of delegates attending the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in September 2008.

A candidate has to win a simple majority of 1,191 delegates out of a total of 2,380 to win the 2008 nomination.

The number, however, could change if delegates leave office, leave the party, cannot make it to the convention or if the national party changes what states to include in the final count.

Who are delegates

The Democratic Party has two types of delegates: Pledged and superdelegates.

Out of the total number of delegates, 3,253 are pledged. A pledged delegate is elected or chosen on the state and local level with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention.

However, pledged delegates are not actually bound to vote for the candidates. Consequently, candidates are allowed on a state-by-state basis to review lists of delegates who have pledged their support and can delete anyone whose support they consider unreliable.

Superdelegates comprise 796 out of the total 4,049 delegates. Superdelegates are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, national committee members or party leaders (such as former presidents nad vice presidents). They are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate, nor do they compete for the privilege like pledged delegates.

The Republican Party has two types of delegates: Pledged and unpledged.

Out of the total number of delegates, 1,917 are pledged delegates and have to indicate support for a particular candidate at the convention. They are usually elected or chosen on the state and local level.

Unpledged delegates comprise 463 out of the total 2,380 delegates and are not required toindicate a preference for a candidate.

A majority of Republican unpledged delegates are elected just like pledged delegates and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. A sizable minority of unpledged delegates automatically become delegates by virtue of their status as either a party chair or a national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.

Winning delegates

The Democratic Party uses proportional representation to decide how many pledged delegates are awarded to each candidate.

For instance, a candidate who wins 40 percent of the vote in a state's primary would essentially win 40 pecent of that state's pledged delegates. A second-place finisher in that primary who wins 30 percent of the vote essentially gets 30 percent of thepledged delegates.

However, a candidate has to receive at least 15 percent of the vote to get any pledged delegates. If a candidate gets 14 percent, tough luck -- they aren't awarded any delegates.

There is no official process towin superdelegates because they can vote for whomever they please. But a candidate can use whatever powers of persuasion they have at their disposal to win the support of a superdelegate.

carol

And sorry for unknowing tap-dancing on your toes.

:/

For some strange reason, the text was remaining italicized even though there was a proper ending code in it.

The minor edit I made (which I should have asked permission to do, and failed to) was adding a closing parentheses in the first paragraph of jamess' italicized opening, changing

"...and so was not ontop of all the exciting (and otherwise posts."

to

"...and so was not ontop of all the exciting (and otherwise) posts."

Mea culpa if that was the wrong thing to do.

Anywho, I resolved the italics issue by posting my note about the edit and adjustment to the top of the thread and individually coding it to appear italicized, then removed and re-typed the ending italics code that was already in place within the text.

A final adjustment consisted of simply inserting a physical break point so that a little more of the post appeared "above the fold."

I didn't realize the italics up top were by Carol; I was acting without thinking.

Anywho -- mea culpa maxima, folks.

...I'll be out most of the rest of the day, so I won't muck up anything (too badly) without access to my keyboard...

:(

Not to worry. Thanks for concern. Hey, I had some problems with the "revision" format too.

Through my last week's fog--I got hit on the head--I have been following the increasingly nasty Clinton campaign against Obama. Here is a good summary Strange Bedfellows: The Clintons, Karl Rove ... and Erica Jong? by R. J. Eskow.

carol

Hope you're doing ok -- hits to the head can be nasty.

:/

I'll check out that Eskow article today.

Counter to my wisdom, he gives evidence showing that both Clinton and Edwards address economic recovery with more substantial proposals than Obama has offered. Partly this is because I "got my news on Clinton's proposals" from--guess where--CNN. Responding to Recession

carol