I didn't say you thought McCain will become nominee, I was responding to pundits who now put him ahead of pack because of South Carolina's role in choosing Republican nominees since 1980. But I found your remarks about Fox News' preference for Huckabee very revealing. McCain doesn't make evangelicals or conservatives comfortable. Slander campaign against him in South Carolina by various Republican conservatives can't be ignored. Rush Limbaugh saying that McCain would destroy Republican Party makes it seem like certain hard-core Republican conservatives will not accept McCain any more than they will accept Giuliani, although I admit Limbaugh hates Huckabee too. I guess that puts him firmly in Romney's camp now? How humorous given Romney's record in Massachusetts.

Thompson and Huckabee went for same demographic; even Thompson endorsement of McCain wouldn't necessary transfer all of those votes to him. Fox was probably right that many Thompson voters will drift to Huckabee if Thompson pulls out no matter what Thompson has to say about it. Still, I agree with you that 5 February will tell tale, and guesswork before then really doesn't resolve anything.

Media says that Democratic race has become two-way struggle between Clinton and Obama, but if Obama can only count on blacks, young people, independents, and upper middle class, he won't win Democratic nomination. I consider him Democratic Party's McCain, trying to reach across aisle, "unite Americans", and pull independent voters. That makes him better choice to win in November, but much weaker choice to win nomination against hard-core polarising Democrat like Hillary. Obama needs some heavyweights all right, but I just don't see him getting them.

Also according to CNN's exit poll, Huckabee got 35% of self-described conservatives to 26% for McCain, and Thompson's 16% came almost entirely from voters who would otherwise have selected Huckabee. Thompson campaigned for same voters in same parts of state that Huckabee did, and concentrated his extensive fire almost exclusively on Huckabee. I recognise that pundits now say race has come down to McCain and Romney, with McCain ahead, but Romney still leads delegate counts and Huckabee may yet win more southern states if and when Thompson drops out of race. (President Thompson, get used to it? No, I really don't think so.) If Romney could cut vice presidential deal with Huckabee, I would put them squarely ahead of McCain.

Please don't misunderstand me. McCain remains most likable Republican from my perspective, and at least he doesn't believe in torture, but I don't think US needs another Republican president in 2009 and McCain has to be considered their best shot. That explains why I seem to root against him.

the answer seems clear. Are they conservative? Certainly, but I think the more important factor is that the network, at least from this keyboard, is anti-liberal. Any person or story that deviates too far from the "evil Left vs virtuous Right" narrative will simply be ignored as long as possible-- forever, if circumstances allow. Since Paul's positions can't be condensed into a thirty second, ready for prime time caricature, his campaign successes will always be a bit embarrassing to Ailes and crew. Until Ron Paul follows Perot's template and starts buying infomercials, he's not going to get any loving from the big media on his side of the aisle. (Maybe he could lobby someone at CNN to attack him full time, which would finally drive the Fox conservatives to defend Paul, but right now there's no financial incentive to do a "Ron Paul is dead" story at any of the major media outlets.)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Sadly, I am starting to believe this. This is not the only major recent publication which mentions Giuliani as a major candidate, despite getting trounced repeatedly by Paul. Mr. Paul (notice the picture gallery at the top of 'all' the GOP contenders) is ignored completely.

This is stupid. How can the media claim to be unbiased if they are ignoring the campaign of a person consistently getting support in the mid-teens, yet provide coverage to minor challengers such as Giuliani?

If this is what they would do to a person running for the GOP nomination, then a 3rd party nominee has no shot at all. Depressing.

WTF was up with that? At one point Paul was 2 votes behind McCain whilst the votes in Nevada were being reported in, yet McCain was listed with 13% and Paul 12% on the giant CNN pie chart. When Paul finally did end up clinching 2nd they really did not refer to him much except to make the occasional derisive commentary along the lines of "Oh, look at <so and so>. Only X% and finishing below RON PAUL."

Look, I recognize he has no chance at winning the national election (possibly due to lack of news coverage) but if he is considered so non-viable, then how come Giuliani, et al get tons of coverage the night of primaries when they only collect a few percentage points?

Obviously The Man is keeping him down. Just sayin'.

Being anti-war was bad enough, but being anti-Federal Reserve counts as completely intolerable. Most of US media belongs to seven or eight giant media companies. Those media companies all have at least one bank representative on their Boards, and each of those bank representatives understands that economic power of bankers originates with national banking. In early US history, national banking was most important issue: Andrew Jackson became hero to many southerners and westerners because of his decommissioning of Second Bank of the United States. Today, almost no one knows or says anything about national banking and no one can talk about it without being blackballed. Libertarians get considered revolutionaries by powers-that-be primarily because they would tear down that edifice, and they get shunned by media lest they raise Fed or fiat currency related issues to blissfully-unaware public.