Interesting opinion, but there are few, if any, facts apparent to me. The author does seem to support Edwards, which doesn't improve the evaluation of any possible objectivity he might have.

An interesting set of views, but it is not clear whether it is reflected in the public view.

This is an editorial or op/ed piece, hence it is highly impressionistic. But, nonetheless, the point that the MSM is concentrating on Hillary is true...and Obama comes a close second. Edwards, who has more to say, is being relegated to also-ran status. He has the distinction of being a traitor to his class, and as such is being given the Kerry/Gore treatment.

Analyzes the current surfeit of presidential campaign debates, and concludes: "Conventional wisdom says that...debates help everyone but the front-runner in the polls, because they give the pack exposure and face time next to the leader. But so far in Campaign 2008, the opposite has been true. The constant debates are slowly destroying the candidacies of John Edwards and Barack Obama."

This is an opinion, and as such, I don't expect it to be "fair and accurate." I do think that Mr. Stark provides an interesting take on the debates. Personally, I like to see all the candidates lined up to answer questions. After reading Mr. Stark's article, I'll be more aware of how that adds or takes away from their election potential.

If the author is of the opinion that the "debates" are "killing" certain candidates, while others are profiting from ready scripted remarks, then he must also presume that a significant majority of the public is actually watching and listening. That presumption, I believe, is far off the mark. These "debates", as the author hints, are dog and pony shows designed to fill time on the tube and, hopefully, garner audience ratings. While I have been very active in following the ... More »

No redundancy is boring.