Isn't it fair to point out that CNN favors one point of view over another?

They might, but here's where you bring up an interesting point - CNN may have vague slighlty left leanings - too sublte for anyone on the left to notice, by the way, but you know, comparing it to FOX is like comparing apples and fruit that has nothing to do with apples. 

The difference is that FOX is not sublte.  They are a direct propaganda arm, whereas CNN has a vague leaning.

What can possibly be gained by her staying in?

The longer it drags on the more likely a McCain win.  That means she can get the nomination in 2012.  Then, after 4 more Republican years, people will defintely be ready for a Democrat.  Obama would then be seen as damaged goods, much like Gore and Kerry, so she would be the logical choice since she could basically say, "I told you I was the best bet for winning the important states."  If Obama were, by some miracle, to win the election in November, she might get to run again in 2012 but might have to wait until 2016.  So, if she wants to be President, if she doesn't get the  nomination, it benefits her to let things drag on.

Mike:

I have no problem with Brit Hume's newscast or with Chris Wallace's sunday show -- they lean right but not like some of the other shows on Fox.

Here's a question for you to ponder when listening to your buddy hannity on the ride home today -- if Fox news has the highest ratings how is it not part of the mainstream media?  It is sure as hell not underground.

They might, but here's where you bring up an interesting point - CNN may have vague slighlty left leanings - too sublte for anyone on the left to notice, by the way, but you know, comparing it to FOX is like comparing apples and fruit that has nothing to do with apples. 

The difference is that FOX is not sublte.  They are a direct propaganda arm, whereas CNN has a vague leaning.

I have to call BS on that. In what way is Fox a 'direct propaganda arm'?

I'm wary of any usage of the word 'propaganda', when, from the context, it's used to define any political viewpoint contrary to that of the author.

They aren't controlled or even supported by the government. Murdoch, whom everybody loves to label a 'right winger', is in fact, by his own admission, not so much a political 'conservative', as an old-fashioned capitalist, who realized there was money to be made with a channel like FNC, and went about trying to do so.

"And then Americans wonder why their news media is mistrusted by the rest of the world"

Al, may I make one minor anal-retentive edit?  "Media" is plural.  One should say, "...their news media ARE mistrusted by the rest of the world."

Okay, rant over -- Hillary, drop the hell out!!!!

(edited for quote)

Okay, rant over --

Tom you call that a rant! Jeez! If thats how you rant you may be the most calm guy EVER!

Bizarro news media am most mistrusted! That why us all hate it!

Touche, Bob - I used a pretty loaded word.

But I'll note this - they may not be an arm of the government, but they sure aren't asking any hard hitting questions - they're not propganda, but they sure are in bed with the party and administration.

I do think the Media in its entireity is kind of lazy and guarded.  If its something complex or hard to talk about, such as race, all of the news outlets tend to run away, like knights from a bunny.

Mike,  you stated -

"CNN may have vague slighlty left leanings - too sublte for anyone on the left to notice, by the way, but you know, comparing it to FOX is like comparing apples and fruit that has nothing to do with apples. "

I would submit that a conservative would reverse that and say -

"Fox may have vague slighlty right leanings - too sublte for anyone on the right to notice, by the way, but you know, comparing it to CNN is like comparing apples and fruit that has nothing to do with apples.  "

Like someone else here said...one tends to see viewpoints that are the same as one's own as "middle of the road."

Personally, as far as standard news coverage, I don't really notice much difference in CNN, Fox or MSNBC. They all cover the same sensationalistic crap and give the easy-to-digest soundbites (with scrolling updates on whatever Britney's done lately).  I think where the differences lay are in their respective talking head shows (ie. Oblermann, Hannity, O'Reilly, Matthews, etc.) which skew left/right according to who it is.