msnbc has some stuff on the debate including this crap:

[haaaylee]

NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger adds Paul claimed that his anti-war stance has garnered him the most donations from the armed services and military veterans. He bases that on reviews of Federal Election Commission reports for the third quarter of 2007, and the amount of donations from people who listed military branches as their employer or listed themselves as a veteran. Using that scenario, according to pro-Paul blogs, Paul garnered $22,140 from military veterans, surpassing McCain, who had $16,675.The truth is, though, that many people don't list their employers or the fact that they are a military veteran, so the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

[jumpyg1258]

Since I realized they track such things, I started stating in my donations that I was a veteran this quarter. I am hoping others have been as well.

[rory096]

Uh, because people are more likely to list their employers if they're donating to Paul? Great logic.

[Nathan Hale]

It's not crap. In fact it's a pretty fair assessment. Still, Paul then need only claim that he received more donations from people who "self-identify" as US military. That's what he was saying when the data was first released, and its verbiage he should have stuck to.

[margomaps]

Well, that is true actually.

[Shellshock1918]

Uh, because people are more likely to list their employers if they're donating to Paul? Great logic.

Well we are a bit brighter than the bunch. :p

[rory096]

It's not crap. In fact it's a pretty fair assessment. Still, Paul then need only claim that he received more donations from people who "self-identify" as US military. That's what he was saying when the data was first released, and its verbiage he should have stuck to.
This is like saying that polling a random, say, 50% of the population doesn't give you an accurate view of the whole population's stance. Unless there's some reason why this sample would be self-selecting (ie, why Paul supporters would be more likely to write down their employer), then this is still random, so it's pretty accurate.

[ReallyNow]

It's pure speculation that shouldn't be in a fact-based article. "may not be" shouldn't be enough proof to go to print!

[Ron Paul Fan]

May not be accurate, but more than likely is! Ron Paul receives the most donations from military personel! The only people who don't care about this statistic are MSNBC and John McCain! Even Fox News reported it better than this!

[anewvoice]

It MAY be true, but it's the same true for all candidates. So the same % over McCain that Paul is now, he would be with bigger numbers if all donations had employer listed.

What an ass clown.

[hellah10]

Since I realized they track such things, I started stating in my donations that I was a veteran this quarter. I am hoping others have been as well.

where do you put that your a veteran? Im a vet... id like to note that with my donations

[margomaps]

where do you put that your a veteran? Im a vet... id like to note that with my donations

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

It's right there in section 2, "Employment".

[OptionsTrader]

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

It's right there in section 2, "Employment".

That was not the question. The question is where is the block for veterans. There are plenty of veterans that have civilian jobs.

[hellah10]

ive always put who im working for in employment... im 26, so its not like im a retired vet

[rpfreedom08]

Yeah I don't think they would be mentioning this if McCain had more military donations then Paul. Do you guys think the system can really change? I was thinking about this earlier. The way things are and the fact that so many people are blind and don't give a shit, do you think we are really prepared to change? And do you think it will ever happen? I know what I tell myself is going to happen but I just don't know if I'm being honest with myself.

[rjl]

Since Ron Paul will lead ALL candidates this quarter, and will likely still lead in those who self-identify as military, this criticism--which I believe is fair--will be moot.

[dircha]

Yeah I don't think they would be mentioning this if McCain had more military donations then Paul. Do you guys think the system can really change? I was thinking about this earlier. The way things are and the fact that so many people are blind and don't give a shit, do you think we are really prepared to change? And do you think it will ever happen? I know what I tell myself is going to happen but I just don't know if I'm being honest with myself.

Exactly.

Just like how on November 5th CNN kept reporting that Ron Paul's campaign has "allegedly raised" or "claims to have raised" and "but we can't verify this until the FEC filings are released".

You can sure bet they wouldn't be giving those qualifications with every mention of the story if this had been Hillary or Romney. In fact, we know they wouldn't have, because they didn't when they had their bigger takings.

[margomaps]

That was not the question. The question is where is the block for veterans. There are plenty of veterans that have civilian jobs.

There is no "block for veterans." I told the person the only place there is to indicate his military affiliation.

:p

[rpfreedom08]

absolutely... I thought the same thing on the 5th, it's a real shame but thats the name of the game, it really justifies what I think to be true about the media and as much as they want to call me a conspiracy theorist I know for a fact now that it's true. They are really pulling out all the stops with Ron Paul, I'm just glad I woke up enough to notice whats really going on out there.


Exactly.

Just like how on November 5th CNN kept reporting that Ron Paul's campaign has "allegedly raised" or "claims to have raised" and "but we can't verify this until the FEC filings are released".

You can sure bet they wouldn't be giving those qualifications with every mention of the story if this had been Hillary or Romney. In fact, we know they wouldn't have, because they didn't when they had their bigger takings.

[ReallyNow]

Yeah I don't think they would be mentioning this if McCain had more military donations then Paul. Do you guys think the system can really change? I was thinking about this earlier. The way things are and the fact that so many people are blind and don't give a shit, do you think we are really prepared to change? And do you think it will ever happen? I know what I tell myself is going to happen but I just don't know if I'm being honest with myself.

I really believe we are going to have to bring at least 1 other person with us to vote (make sure they register) who doesn't really care about politics but will go because you ask them (and drive them). Also, a free dinner helps. I've got 3 people on board already who aren't that into politics and wouldn't have voted otherwise.

[rpfreedom08]

..........that is an awesome idea, thanks for mentioning that, I've been holding out on a party for a long time, looks like I'm about to have a house party :)

[dircha]

//

[ReallyNow]

..........that is an awesome idea, thanks for mentioning that, I've been holding out on a party for a long time, looks like I'm about to have a house party :)

I mentioned it in another thread and it didn't really get a lot of traction. I think it could really bring the numbers up and it's very inexpensive (only costs you a dinner :))

[rpfreedom08]

I completely agree, I mean we are giving out lots of money to paul so a dinner or a party providing the beer would be a great tactic. I'm not sure if it's legal but then again the stuff they are pulling on ron paul it's really only evening the odds.

[NewEnd]

Uh, because people are more likely to list their employers if they're donating to Paul? Great logic.

+1

Why are Paul's donors more likely to self-identify? This would need to be proved before any other conjectures made.

[Nathan Hale]

This is like saying that polling a random, say, 50% of the population doesn't give you an accurate view of the whole population's stance. Unless there's some reason why this sample would be self-selecting (ie, why Paul supporters would be more likely to write down their employer), then this is still random, so it's pretty accurate.

I agree with you. I believe the numbers are accurate. But I don't KNOW that they're accurate for a variety of reasons:

1. The numbers were crunched with poor data points. In order to produce a total for donations to a specific employer, they had to isolate the exact name of the employer. How many different ways could you phrase the name of your employer if you were in the military? Hell, I'll bet a bunch of military donations came in with the employer listed simply as "US Government" to say nothing of the other derivations that could result from military employment.

2. Many people, especially reservists and national guardsmen, might have put their civilian employer as their employer.

3. Many people might have put nothing at all. Don't you have to donate more than $100 for it to count?

At the end of the day, I agree with you, and I think that Ron Paul got the most military donations. But MSNBC never claimed to the contrary, they only said that there's room to doubt, and I agree with them, because there is a lot of wiggle room, a lot of variables.

[Nathan Hale]

It's pure speculation that shouldn't be in a fact-based article. "may not be" shouldn't be enough proof to go to print!

It's not front page newsy print. It was opinion offered on a blog "first read" that always says opinion.

[Nathan Hale]

May not be accurate, but more than likely is! Ron Paul receives the most donations from military personel! The only people who don't care about this statistic are MSNBC and John McCain! Even Fox News reported it better than this!

THIS IS NOT REPORTING. IT IS OPINION, POSTED ON AN MSNBC OPINION PAGE.

[Nathan Hale]

Exactly.

Just like how on November 5th CNN kept reporting that Ron Paul's campaign has "allegedly raised" or "claims to have raised" and "but we can't verify this until the FEC filings are released".

You can sure bet they wouldn't be giving those qualifications with every mention of the story if this had been Hillary or Romney. In fact, we know they wouldn't have, because they didn't when they had their bigger takings.

This isn't true. While they did say "allegedly" or "claims to have..." a few times, for the most part they spoke of it as fact. And considering that they're still talking about it, as fact, a month before the FEC filing is due, it's not a bias case. You saw the same qualifications offered when Obama raised $1M in a day a few months ago.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Is anyone else starting to believe that Matthew E Berger is Nathan Hale? Ron Paul has received the most donations from military personel and that's a fact! We weren't meant to be an empire, we were meant to be a republic protecting liberty here at home!!!!!!

[Paulitician]

Ron Paul gets the most military donations, but that doesn't mean that he gets the support from the troops, troops' families, or veterans (it could be the case but it doesn't mean it has to be that way--it's possible the majority of the military hates Ron Paul...). It's like John McCain's stupid anecdotal evidence that the soldiers wanted to "win" in Iraq. It is an interesting factiod nonetheless. It shows that military personel are willing to back him, but it's not saying most back him. You also have to remember that Ronnie gets almost all his donations from individuals like you and me, not wealthy lawyers, lobbyists, corporation employees etc., so it's natural that he'd get the most donation from the troops and whatnot. It would only make sense statistically.

[Nathan Hale]

Okay, I posted four times in a row defending MSNBC. Here's the moral of the story:

We are too quick to blame the media for everything. Too many people on these boards take suspect or contextually-deficient evidence and imagine a vast media conspiracy to justify it. That's bullshit and we need to get our heads in the game or we're going to sacrifice the race for President on the altar of our desire to prove that the mainstream is so corrupt that a "revolution" is necessary to overthrow it.

The media isn't out to fuck us over. Ron Paul is taken about as seriously as a 5% candidate should be. John Kerry, who was polling at 7% before the Iowa caucus, got LESS media coverage than Ron Paul is currently, despite polling slightly higher. So if you think about it, Ron Paul gets MORE coverage than he should. He gets a hell of a lot more than Richardson, who is polling twice Paul's numbers.

It's important that we see things as they are, but it seems to me that the nature of Paul's campaign requires us to see things through an inaccurate "us vs them" filter. What few of us realize, however, is that such a filter HURTS this campaign because it blinds us to many realities that we need to see in order to succeed.

[Nathan Hale]

Is anyone else starting to believe that Matthew E Berger is Nathan Hale? Ron Paul has received the most donations from military personel and that's a fact! We weren't meant to be an empire, we were meant to be a republic protecting liberty here at home!!!!!!

Umm, I've been posting here for months.

And it looks like you are countering my post with a bunch of unrelated cheerleading. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Richardson ain't polling twice as much as Ron Paul anywhere. That's a LIE! Not nationally, not in Iowa, not in New Hampshire! Maybe in New Mexico! Bill Richardson has been on Meet the Press! He's been on Countdown, Face the Nation, Bill Maher, Charlie Rose! All of these places! He's a shill for Hillary and a joke of a candidate! Ron Paul deserves better than this!

[NewEnd]

The media isn't out to fuck us over. Ron Paul is taken about as seriously as a 5% candidate should be. John Kerry, who was polling at 7% before the Iowa caucus, got LESS media coverage than Ron Paul is currently, despite polling slightly higher. .

No. Not true.

I was a Dean fantic at the time, and I knew way early that Kerry was the guy the MSM loved. I knew way back when...... he was the guy they were going to prop up. They gave him tons of stories.... I rememebr particularly stories abotu how young and hip he was, how he loved to surfboard and a bunch of other Kennedy family garbage.

And secondly, you can defend MSNBC all you want, but their logic is FLAWED. There is no reason why a paul supporter would be more likely to claim active military/veteran than a McCain supporter.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The truth is, though, that many people don't list their employers or the fact that they are a military veteran, so the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

I'll keep that in mind next time they cite a poll where only 1 in 500,000 Americans have been contacted.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Most recent CNN Poll: Bill Richardson 4%, Ron Paul 6%.

Most recent LA Times Poll: Bill Richardson 3%, Ron Paul 5%

Most recent Zogby NH Poll: Bill Richardson 6%, Ron Paul 7%

Most recent Strategic Vision Iowa Poll: Bill Richardson 3%, Ron Paul 5%

So, is Bill Richardson really running twice as high as Ron Paul? Is there a reason why he has been on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, NewsHour with Jim Leher, Countdown, Charlie Rose, Hardball, Larry King Live? Ron Paul has only been on 4/8 of those shows, he's polling higher, and has more money in the bank. Is the media really treating Ron Paul the same as Bill Richardson?

[Paulitician]

Okay, I posted four times in a row defending MSNBC. Here's the moral of the story:

We are too quick to blame the media for everything. Too many people on these boards take suspect or contextually-deficient evidence and imagine a vast media conspiracy to justify it. That's bullshit and we need to get our heads in the game or we're going to sacrifice the race for President on the altar of our desire to prove that the mainstream is so corrupt that a "revolution" is necessary to overthrow it.

The media isn't out to fuck us over. Ron Paul is taken about as seriously as a 5% candidate should be. John Kerry, who was polling at 7% before the Iowa caucus, got LESS media coverage than Ron Paul is currently, despite polling slightly higher. So if you think about it, Ron Paul gets MORE coverage than he should. He gets a hell of a lot more than Richardson, who is polling twice Paul's numbers.

It's important that we see things as they are, but it seems to me that the nature of Paul's campaign requires us to see things through an inaccurate "us vs them" filter. What few of us realize, however, is that such a filter HURTS this campaign because it blinds us to many realities that we need to see in order to succeed.
I would agree with you except there is abundant evidence out there that proves otherwise. We can go through the history of the campaign and point out tons of examples of how the media is exactly trying to "fuck us over." Actually, most of the time they've done much worse--given us almost no coverage whatsoever. Are you saying there is nothing suspect of McCain being included in all of the polls on yesterday's Meet The Press, but not Ron Paul, even though he polls higher in some states, and even though his fundraising is probably much better than any Republican this quarter? Seriously, what exactly do we have to do to deserve our stripes? Haven't we proven ourselves enough?

That's not to say I don't fault the campaign in any way. Some of Ron Paul's supporters seriously need to show some restraint--and HQ constantly fails at responding to media offers (i.e. Glenn Beck and probably other examples we're not aware of). But I seriously do not understand how people can justify the media's behavior. They're horrible. They're corrupt and they're part of the problem.

[Nathan Hale]

No. Not true.

I was a Dean fantic at the time, and I knew way early that Kerry was the guy the MSM loved. I knew way back when...... he was the guy they were going to prop up. They gave him tons of stories.... I rememebr particularly stories abotu how young and hip he was, how he loved to surfboard and a bunch of other Kennedy family garbage.

That all happened after the primaries - the whole botox/snowboarding thing. Before then Kerry was just another candidate in a crowded field. The media play was all Wes Clark, Howard Dean, and a little Edwards.



And secondly, you can defend MSNBC all you want, but their logic is FLAWED. There is no reason why a paul supporter would be more likely to claim active military/veteran than a McCain supporter.

I'm not defending MSNBC. I'm looking at this from an unbiased perspective. And I don't recall MSNBC saying that Paul supporters would be more likely to claim. At least, I never used that fact in any post I've made about MSNBC.

[Nathan Hale]

Richardson ain't polling twice as much as Ron Paul anywhere. That's a LIE! Not nationally, not in Iowa, not in New Hampshire! Maybe in New Mexico! Bill Richardson has been on Meet the Press! He's been on Countdown, Face the Nation, Bill Maher, Charlie Rose! All of these places! He's a shill for Hillary and a joke of a candidate! Ron Paul deserves better than this!

Richardson averages higher than Paul in most states. Check out the polls man - even in Iowa and NH. Look at realclearpolitics and their average rating based on the most recent polls. Yeah, Bill Richardson has gotten press, as you pointed out, but Paul has gotten more. There's no conspiracy.

[Nathan Hale]

I would agree with you except there is abundant evidence out there that proves otherwise. We can go through the history of the campaign and point out tons of examples of how the media is exactly trying to "fuck us over."

Let's start with one.


Actually, most of the time they've done much worse--given us almost no coverage whatsoever. Are you saying there is nothing suspect of McCain being included in all of the polls on yesterday's Meet The Press, but not Ron Paul, even though he polls higher in some states, and even though his fundraising is probably much better than any Republican this quarter? Seriously, what exactly do we have to do to deserve our stripes? Haven't we proven ourselves enough?

I agree with you, Paul should have been included. But for all that Paul polled equal to McCain in the poll they spoke about, McCain, by and large, polls higher than Paul. There is a "tier gap" between the two, though it is a lot less than it was. And I agree that the media should be more open in this process, Paul has earned his stripes. But the media omitting Paul ISNT about fucking him over or excluding him specifically.


That's not to say I don't fault the campaign in any way. Some of Ron Paul's supporters seriously need to show some restraint--and HQ constantly fails at responding to media offers (i.e. Glenn Beck and probably other examples we're not aware of). But I seriously do not understand how people can justify the media's behavior. They're horrible. They're corrupt and they're part of the problem.

Okay, you're missing the point. It's not about justifying the media's behavior. I've posted numerous times on these boards decrying the behavior of the media. BUT, it's not a conspiracy. It's not the intent of the media to target Paul for exclusion. It's not "the man" keeping Paul down.

[NewEnd]

That all happened after the primaries - the whole botox/snowboarding thing. Before then Kerry was just another candidate in a crowded field. The media play was all Wes Clark, Howard Dean, and a little Edwards.

No. Not true. I was on Dean like I am on Paul, way before Kerry was big man on Campus. this was not before the primaries. I was very aware of what was going on, and Kerry was getting stories all the time on useless junk... and positive stories too.

Hwo closely were you watching the Democratic primaries? Because I was on them eagle eye.

Kerry was the annointed one. People talking about Kerry's numbers being poor at this time, he was getting free press all the time. Way more than Gephardt or Kucinich or Edwards or Lieberman.

[RonPaulalways]

a military veteran donating to a pro-war candidate is FAR more likely to identify himself as a veteran than one donating to a pro-peace candidate, because of the macho image people try to maintain in the military.

[Nathan Hale]

No. Not true. I was on Dean like I am on Paul, way before Kerry was big man on Campus. this was not before the primaries. I was very aware of what was going on, and Kerry was getting stories all the time on useless junk... and positive stories too.

Hwo closely were you watching the Democratic primaries? Because I was on them eagle eye.

Kerry was the annointed one. People talking abotu Kerry's numbers being poor at this time, he was getting free press all the time. Way more than Gephardt or Kucinich or Edwards or Lieberman.

To an extent, I'm wrong. Kerry wasn't just another face in the pack. He was consistently polling second to Dean (I just did some research). So he's a bad example to prove my point. I do contest your claim that Kerry was "anointed", but that's another debate entirely.

My original point was that Ron Paul was getting an ordinate amount of media coverage based on his position in the field, and that point stands. Perhaps a better example from the 2004 race was Dick Gephardt. The man polled higher (10% until the final few months), and yet Paul is getting far more coverage polling at 6%. There's no conspiracy.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Richardson averages higher than Paul in most states. Check out the polls man - even in Iowa and NH. Look at realclearpolitics and their average rating based on the most recent polls. Yeah, Bill Richardson has gotten press, as you pointed out, but Paul has gotten more. There's no conspiracy.

You can take many polls and say Richardson is polling ahead of Paul, and you can take just as many and say Paul is polling ahead of Richardson. The point is that you said he was polling twice as much as Paul and that's obviously not the case overall so you LIED to try and prove your point. Richardson gets all of these media appearances because he sticks his head up Hillary's ass every chance he gets. Paul is going to be #1 in fundraising among Republicans. He might outraise your man Richardson by 3 or 4 times! He's fundraising circles around these shills and they still refuse to cover him! How do you think Huckabee went from an unknown to frontrunner? The media! It's not like he's gotten tens of millions of dollars to spread his name around! Paul is getting the shaft by the media and everybody except you here knows it!

[NewEnd]

To an extent, I'm wrong. Kerry wasn't just another face in the pack. He was consistently polling second to Dean (I just did some research). So he's a bad example to prove my point. I do contest your claim that Kerry was "anointed", but that's another debate entirely.

My original point was that Ron Paul was getting an ordinate amount of media coverage based on his position in the field, and that point stands. Perhaps a better example from the 2004 race was Dick Gephardt. The man polled higher (10% until the final few months), and yet Paul is getting far more coverage polling at 6%. There's no conspiracy.

Gephardt got a fair amount of coverage, but by and large, we all, at the Dean forums, knew well in advance, it was Kerry who was the annointed one by Terry McAuliffe.

[Xanax Nation]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/206/

A military victory for Paul

Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes the war and one of the most ardent antiwar candidates in both parties, is on the money here.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since January, he has received at least $53,670 from U.S. military personnel. The Houston Chronicle, after an extensive analysis of Federal Election Commission reports, puts the figure at $63,440 for the same period.

The disparity in the figures is caused by the complicated nature of campaign contributions.

Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, speculates that the difference between their numbers and those of the Chronicle are because the newspaper had access to small contributions and was more familiar with the military connections of people who might not have listed the military as their employer.

Regardless, Paul is right that he’s on top.

Both sources say Democratic candidate Barack Obama comes in second, with CRP reporting he has received $45,200 from military folks. The Houston paper says active and retired military personnel funneled $53,968 to Obama’s campaign.

“What we were hearing from the donors is that this money was definitely a statement about the war,” Ritsch said. “It doesn’t mean it reflects the views of anyone else in the military. It just may be the way this small slice of people is making a statement, because it’s one of the ways they can make a statement. If you’re active military, there aren’t too many ways you can protest the mission you’ve been assigned.”

John McCain comes in third, with CRP reporting he received $40,000 and the Chronicle saying $48,208. McCain was a Vietnam War prisoner and backs the surge in Iraq.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I think Edwards in 2004 is more comparable to Paul than Dean is, because he was basically ahead of only the "fringe" tier and yet garnered a surprising 32% in Iowa. Then again, the Dems have their 15% rule and they do other weird things at their caucus that probably benefited him.

[NewEnd]

I think Edwards in 2004 is more comparable to Paul than Dean is, because he was basically ahead of only the "fringe" tier and yet garnered a surprising 32% in Iowa. Then again, the Dems have their 15% rule and they do other weird things at their caucus that probably benefited him.

edwards traded votes with Kucinich. We were pissed, because Edwards supported the war, Kucinich didn't, so we thought Kucinich would be an ally... nope.

[Nathan Hale]

You can take many polls and say Richardson is polling ahead of Paul, and you can take just as many and say Paul is polling ahead of Richardson. The point is that you said he was polling twice as much as Paul and that's obviously not the case overall so you LIED to try and prove your point.

Did I say that every poll put him twice as high as Paul? No. I said that he was polling twice as high as Paul, and that remains true. In MOST polls he's way above Paul. Not that any of this is relevant to the core of my point.

At the core, this whole argument means nothing. Richardson is justified to receive more coverage than Paul, yet Paul receives just as much coverage as the man. There's no fucking conspiracy to exclude Ron Paul. It's a fantasy that you're dreaming up because you're insecure about Ron Paul's chances in the primary. I don't blame you, it's human nature. Now get over yourself and join the thinking caucus of this revolution.

Your accusation condemns about everyone on these boards. Just look at the terminology used when Paul polls above somebody new in one single debate. You'd think it was universal truth. Whenever Paul is on the rise the polls, we have been more than liberal with our own terminology, so I expect you to call Paul supporters out for their claims from here on in. Good luck with that.


Richardson gets all of these media appearances because he sticks his head up Hillary's ass every chance he gets. Paul is going to be #1 in fundraising among Republicans.

There's a good chance Paul will be #1 in funding. That'll rock. Umm, you throw it at me as though I contested otherwise. Any reason?


He might outraise your man Richardson by 3 or 4 times!

"My man" Richardson? Excuse you, but I have over 500 posts on these boards and I've been a member here longer than you have, so kindly go fuck yourself.

As for Paul outraising Richardson - I don't doubt it or deny it. In fact, I bet you'll hear about Ron Paul's fundraising a lot more than you hear about Richardson's fundraising when you tune into the news.


He's fundraising circles around these shills and they still refuse to cover him!

What planet are you on? Ron Paul is interviewed by the mainstream media EVERY DAY. He gets more play than your average 5% candidate could ever dream of getting. If this is a conspiracy, Ron Paul's in on it.


How do you think Huckabee went from an unknown to frontrunner?

A consistently solid performance in widely televised debates, a strong executive background and background as a preacher, and his showing at the Iowa caucus.


The media!

Or that.

No, really, that's just as intelligent and logical a conclusion.


It's not like he's gotten tens of millions of dollars to spread his name around!

Well, now that he's above 10% he does.


Paul is getting the shaft by the media and everybody except you here knows it!

Of course he is. Here's your tin foil hat.

[Nathan Hale]

Gephardt got a fair amount of coverage, but by and large, we all, at the Dean forums, knew well in advance, it was Kerry who was the annointed one by Terry McAuliffe.

I didn't see that at all. Dean appeared annointed by the media. ALL the coverage was on him. The others got kitchy Ron Paul-esque spots and that was it. If John Kerry was the heir apparent, they kept it well concealed from both pundits and voters.