Supports Trump over Hillary by 10 points? WTF is wrong with them?

Great job capsulizing the double standard that democrats - and the Clintons specifically - seem to always endure.

All while listening to the drumbeat of cries to shine a light on "the elite, liberal media"

AAARRRRRGH!

a clearly unsuitable candidate for the purposes of "horse race ratings".

Now I reluctantly concede the point. If it weren't so damn dangerous for the Country, I would be amused.

what is going on. The media will be critical of Trump one day and then pull back the next and go after Hillary, all to give the appearance of a real race. Ratings, ratings, ratings.

If they were honest it would have been over months ago.

.....to keep a level of interest in the election that generates their competitive ratings.

Remember, Trump doesn't exactly love this media. But they are keeping him in front of the public because they, the media, believe that's what the public and Trump want.

The Clinton campaign must spread itself over dealing with the daily Clinton fabricated "scandals" and replying to Trump's daily outrageous claims and proposals.

The several weeks to go should prove interesting for all sides and also for the public as the intentions and manipulations of campaigns and media seek to sway and hold voters for the balance of the election cycle.

I don't know how many dipshit donnie surrogates they had on. They must have them stacked and packed in the wings. But the talking heads were just nodding their heads yes to everything they said. Add to it joe the morning joke. All the panel was doing their own dipshit surrogate bit. It was so bad one of them who wanted to at least say the Clinton Charities have done a lot of good. Had to ask that they didn't jump on him for mentioning it first. To me they really need to just remove the mention of news from the cable "news" channels. Maybe B.S. would be more appropriate tag line. How about it cable "news" maybe you want to elevate your self above the level of the National Enquirer.

Now excuse me on this next part. I hope to make this clear. I'm just a white, retired blue collar worker, with a lowly high school education. Not some kind of sooper smart political news pundit so bare with me.

On the meetings. Okay "news" media how about thinking first and maybe since they want to act like journalists. How about asking questions. Don't make judgements without facts. That's territory for those uneducated folks like me.

First should being a donor automatically disqualify someone from ever having a meeting?

Next on the amount of meetings 85 out 150 having people who contributed. Out of those how many would probably have a decent chance of getting a meeting with out making contributions? After all she had the other meetings which don't seem to be a problem to the news media. The Gates for example I think could have a good chance even with out a contribution. I'm pretty sure there are others which have had meetings could have a decent chance of having a meeting.

One of the AP reporters said a meeting with one donor was a group meeting. So to me it would mean Mrs. Clinton would probably have had a meeting anyways. I don't know what it was about. But assuming it covered common ground with what the others were involved with. Since it was probably common ground should she have excluded that one person?

Was it even associated with any work the foundation was doing? Or was it a meeting about another topic?

Next if it is in U.S. interest (I.E. winning hearts and minds) to me that has a good chance of being symbiotic. So again to me something she should be doing.

Anyways cable "news" media pull your heads out.

Sadly, I believe that "cable news media" knows exactly what it's doing.

They know that most casual viewers won't parse the words carefully enough to discern what's going on. If they manage to make it seems like a close race, their sponsors get more eyeballs.

Always remember. In media, WE are the product.

it cannot be overstated.

The slant is so incredibly obvious.