A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination

New York Times ^

[Sub-Driver]

November 17, 2007 A Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination By JULIE BOSMAN

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for a battle with her Democratic rivals at the CNN-sponsored debate on Thursday night. She did not have much to fear from the postdebate round table.

Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.

Mr. Carville’s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.

“Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: “What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”

A CNN executive conceded that the cable channel should have more fully disclosed Mr. Carville’s past and that it was discussing how to handle such situations.

The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas that ran nearly 15 minutes late. Viewers criticized segments like the opening, when candidates bounded onto the stage in a style reminiscent of a sports event.

Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions.

[samtheman]

So what is the left saying? That CNN is guilty of bias?

Noooooooo. Can’t be.

[pabianice]

Another criticism of Hillary! from the New York Fishwrap? What the hell is happening to the world?????

[golfisnr1]

It is getting very evident that the powers to be think Hillary is unelectable.

[Malone LaVeigh]

They called it a conflict of interest

I'm amazed they even know what that phrase means.

[WashingtonSource]

So this means Shrillary is still in free fall. I love it. And from her own “people,” the lag dogs at the New York Times. Or have they switched to Obama?

[COUNTrecount]

If WoofWoof can't make it for the next Demo "infomercial" is suggest this man as the "moderator".

[SusaninOhio]

To paraphrase, even a deaf liberal can hear a Clinton lie at least some of the time.

[mtbopfuyn]

We need a pool for her inevitable melt down.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Wolfe Blitzer was specifically and publicly warned by the Clinton campaign not to run the debate in the style of Tim Russert. He and CNN took the warning seriously and turned the debate into a Clinton campaign event.

[Fishtalk]

When I heard Carville’s voice that night I thought the exact same thing....

ie....Carville is the guy who said if you drag a dollar through a trailer park....re Paula Jones....

If that isn’t an obvious attachment to the Clintons I don’t know what is.

I shrugged it off but knew that if CNN were doing a Republican debate and trotted out Karl Rove as a commentator it would be blasted from here to kingdom come.

You mean others notice it too?

[tcrlaf]

Think about this for a second, folks...

If CNN was willing to LIE for Saddam, just IMAGINE what these people are willing to do for Hillary?

[TomGuy]

Carville was there as a reminder to Team Blitzer that that warning earlier in the week [about not pulling another Russert] was still valid.

The debate had one major purpose: To rehabilitate Hillary from the disaster of the driver’s licenses, etc., during the previous debate.

It did that.

[OneHun]

I am having fun reading this article.  The socialists are beating up on each other!

 

[Red_Devil 232]

A CNN executive conceded that the cable channel should have more fully disclosed Mr. Carville’s past and that it was discussing how to handle such situations.

What they are saying is that they will continue to be involved in this biased type of situation and are discussing how to disclose it with minimal impact on their agenda.

[skinkinthegrass]

And from her own “people,” the lag dogs at the New York Times...

*dreamin'* "wouldn't it be "sweet", if the NYTs' 'Toon "lap-dogs" turned and became Lap Hound-dogs....and began "real investigations" ("Attacked" in $hrillary$' Newspeak) of the 'Toons' various "illegal/unethical activities." */dreamin'*

I know; It shall never happen. :\

[Steely Tom]

Liberals get to “re-examine.” Conservatives must resign.

[purpleraine]

Do we need any more evidence that CNN is the Clinton News Network?

[skinkinthegrass]

If CNN was willing to LIE for Saddam, just IMAGINE what these people are willing to do for Hillary?....and the "Operation Tailwind" fraud.

GOOD POINT.

[norton]

"A CNN executive conceded that the cable channel should have more fully disclosed Mr. Carville’s past and that it was discussing how to handle such situations."

Maybe they could simply insert a box under the picture that 'fully discloses' CNN's liberal bias?

That would cover all the socialist talking heads and 'news makers' equally.