I stand by my assertion that probably the most influential reporter on primary politics consistently presenting an overly optimistic view about Barack Obama is problematic. That’s not to say that other problems do not exist. I simply mean to say that Barack Obama is a big boy, and he doesn’t need David Yepsen writing his campaign narrative for him.

The MSM reporting so far reminds me of the lead up to Iraq War during which period a majority reporters served as cheerleaders and forgot to question authority.

Yepsen may be one of the few journalist reporting what is on the ground in Iowa,

The evidence to back the numbers is obvious in the individual money donations and crowds that Obama receives.

Are the people at rallys also biased against Clinton?

linda

No one seems concerned when CNN and NYT and other news outlets write favorably for Clinton and marginalize other candidates. Where was your commentary about the way CNN buried Clinton’s drop in polls with headlines, that seemed to evolve into progressively more positive ones? Or how CNN’s only comment about Barack’s weekend performance was about the music he chose to enter to. NYT doesn’t seem to know that there are candidates other than Clinton, Edwards and Obama running for President. And Fox News has been inappropriate for years. I appreciate your concern, but it seems as biased as you claim Yepsen’s reporting to be.

I agree with frank, Yespen’s objectivity is highly appreciated.

Please check and see what the “Clinton News Network” CNN is doing nowadays.
Hillary has been planting questions in her tour and was caught planting one again this weekend but CNN did not as much make mention of it like other networks did.

We, the American people are very proud of Yepsen for standing up and telling the truth as it is.