The turnout in Nevada was enormous, and Hillary won. According to WashingtonPost.com, their reporting and polling indicates that culinary workers were resentful of their union for efforts to suppress their votes if they were for Hillary. Despite the media circus against the Clintons, culinary union voters felt that it was the Obama forces who were suppressing their votes--as Bill Clinton had argued in the face of attacks by the press. I have never seen a more unfairly reported campaign, and 51% of the nation, in a CBS/NYTimes poll thinks the media have been unfair in their reporting about Hillary. (Only 12% think the same about Obama.) It is about time for the press to report in a more neutral and disinterested fashion. They have become advocates and public relations flaks more than reporters or analysts.A significant number of "analysts" have either been transparent in their support for Obama (e.g., Donna Brazile) or have virtually declared their support (Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, NBC's Obama correspondent). People are voting for Hillary because they are enthusiastic about Hillary. We are the voters. Get over it.

Perhaps the negatives of the Clinton campaign are reported on more because a large percentage of the country has a burning and visceral hatred (irrational in my opinion) for Bill and Hillary.

It makes for good copy because those irrational individuals want to hear something bad about the Clintons.

This is pretty clearly a case of people believing the line that has been fed them. If Hillary says "35 years of experience" enough, a whole lot of people will believe that she has 35 years of experience. If the Clinton machine puts the spin out there that she's getting the short end of the media stick, they'll believe that, too.

Just one example: the day before a caucus in heavily pro-union Nevada, I pick up the paper and read that Obama has praised Ronald Reagan--himself no friend of unions.

However, Obama patently did NOT praise Reagan; he said that he "changed the trajectory of America". Unless you believe that all change is positive, then this does not constitute praise; it constitutes the statement of the obvious. In the AP article I read, it was spun in a way that obviously gave Clinton an advantage, on the morning of an election.

The Clintons are experts at manipulating the press; they spent eight years cultivating favorable contacts, and they know how to get the right story on the front page at the right time (see the Diner Sob). That people believe Obama gets more favorable media coverage is largely a result of the Clintons repeating it again and again.

Maybe the Clinton machine wants the media to bash Hillary so that she will appear less like the establishment candidate? So that she will look like a damsel in distress instead of a warhawk? So that she can cry on TV and win some sympathy even though she's a cold-hearted b**** and most of us know it?

I wish the press would stop bashing Hillary too. Where are all of the reporters hanging effigies of Barack Obama to stir up black voters? When does Barack get a chance to be the victim?

And why can't Edwards get half as much coverage as Hillary is getting? In 2004 his name was on every bumper sticker I saw, right next to John Kerry's, but in 2008 Edwards is the invisible man! What gives?