So why aren't meida outlets giving Rangel coverage for his remarks

[oncall247]

about Chavez's remarks. Had Rangel agreed with Hugo, it would have been all over the cable networks and the main networks. But since Charlie handled Hugos statements with the proper amount of chagrin I guess that is not what the pundits wanted to hear.

[mmonk]

1. That's right.

See, trying to please the right, you get little or no coverage and it's a waste of time.

[rwenos]

2. Pundits Hate Consensus

They want UCLA vs. USC, kicking off a football grudge match at midfield. Not consensus. Consensus yieldeth no sound bites.

And look where it's gotten us.

[wagthedogwar]

3. ah, the circus has begun

Hmmm, dems aren't taking the bait.

Waiter! call up Willie Horton

NEXT!

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

4. How Can Someone On DU STILL Ask Such A Question?

I'm sure you're intelligent, and if you read any of the posts here on a daily basis, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION!!

THE CORPORATE MEDIA WHORES are subservient to one political party, and guess what?????? It's NOT the Democrats!

Given that, WHY would they want to show a Democrat in a favorable light under these circumstances? Sure....like you said, if Rangel had supported Chavez, it would be ALL OVER the media. Why? Because it makes the Dems look bad, fragmented, and somewhat off the beaten path.

Rangel's comments only make him look good, so there is no reason for the Corporate WHORES to shed light on that. They don't generally do good press for the Dems, only Negative & Critical stories.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Because a democrat said a republican thing, and democrats

don't exist or count in the eyes of the media.

And P.S. to all you jumping on Rangel: maybe he said it to prove that democrats can't get the time of day even when they play "nice".