have you noticed that they ONLY ones getting coverage are the worst candidates? Osama and Hillary!
What about all the other candidates, like Bill Richardson, that are getting squat coverage!
John Edwards gets a close 3rd behind Osama & Smelleray, but he is a total anal repressed dweeb
2007-03-04 08:12:56 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Power. They think they have the power to manipulate. In a sense they do. They have been very successful in telling the population what to think.
2007-03-04 08:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obama and Hillary are the front runners for the Dems so it only makes sense they would get the most coverage. Republican news channel "Fox News" does their best to smear Democratic candidates while pumping the Republican hacks. Hows that for fair and balanced.
2007-03-04 16:31:26 · answer #2 · answered by itsdabigbadwolf 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Supreme Court picks the President, not the Liberal media or the voters. If Scalia doesn't like who the voters choose, he overrules their choice with his choice. Voting is irrelevant and a waste of time.
2007-03-04 16:48:23 · answer #3 · answered by Steven 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until I see someone better Ill vote for Edwards
2007-03-04 16:22:43 · answer #4 · answered by lone wolfe 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Remember gore's family was in the news media business for decades. He has trained all libs on the use and abuse of the media.
2007-03-04 16:33:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's Giulani Time!
2007-03-04 16:21:33 · answer #6 · answered by Tiberius 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
john edwards is a bore.
2007-03-04 16:57:05 · answer #7 · answered by thevillageidiotxxxxx 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Calling people names, now that's real mature.
2007-03-04 16:46:52 · answer #8 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, fox 5 is owned by george bushes brother or cousin or soemthing...
2007-03-04 16:23:29 · answer #9 · answered by steveo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋