Maritza

Don't focus just on black/white, man/woman contrasts because it only PROJECTS that YOU want it to be. Don't become irrational, sensational, and glitzy in your comments because then you only become part of the "entertainment". And this goes for criticizing and praising your candidate.

I don't see how the American People can not see the sneaky Hilliary President Elect for who she really is. The Rose Law Firm and the lies I beleive she told, and how her co-worker lost his life because of it. Hilliary was about to be indicted. Then the President Clinton got an outside attorney from the government. All of a sudden no one heard any thing else. She blotted out some things on her itenarary. The President Clinton is trying to force people into voting for his wife. When Hilliary pulled all the records on the delegates and congress, I wonder did she find things to hold over the super-delegates head to force them to vote for her? Hilliary Clinton President Elect stands for whatever will get her the votes. What mood will Hilliary President elect be in when the 3 A.M. phone call comes through?
Mmmmmm!

Hi Anderson. I've enjoyed your work for some time but, while I hate to say it, I have a complaint. Your biography segment on Obama tonight had a glaring "politics as usual" misrespentation and I was quite taken aback.

I'm not a journalist but I try to be a responsible and discriminating consumer of information – consulting multiple sources from multiple mediums to avoid blind acceptance of what could be biased reporting. However I always believed that authentic journalism, vs the trend of entertainment journalism I see, presents both sides of an issue or a forthright presentation of a topic free of errors or misleading omissions. (The opposite of "politics as usual", i guess). If any conclusions are offered, whether empirically based, attributed conclusions (so you can follow up on the reference) or op ed conclusions, they should be clearly identified as such. I'm sure the fact that I have absolutely no knowledge of formal journalistic integrity guidelines or ethics is clear – but that's the personal filter I use to judge my sources before I accept them as reliable without the need for additional corroberating data.

There was a GLARING misrepresentation in the biography of Obama that is reminiscent of the reason I have revoked my consideration of him for President; narrowing my options BUT not my field of research or investigation. You just never know – especially this election.

You reported that Obama won his Senate race with an overwheming majority and I think even offered additional "praise" for this astonishing accomplishment (as I recall). However, you failed to report that he was unopposed on the ballot. (Oops.) That is grossly misleading Anderson and it breaks my heart to think it was done knowingly so I'm going to delude myself this time. Forthright reporting would likely go further and mention why he ended as the only candidate on the ballot but, based on the bias I've seen lately, I would not have been surprised with that smaller omission; accepting it as a side story and not in the spirit of the "biography" segment vs. hard hitting investigative journalism. I was, however, gobsmacked by the glaring deception by omission. CNN is better than that. It informs me that I may need to screen CNN's reporting for more bias than I had already taken into consideration. Pleeeze don't make me...it's getting exhausting this year.

I would ask that you publish an on-air correction so I can keep you in your current place on the bias/reliability continuum. More importantly, so you can have accuracy and integrity in your report. When I get to the point where I spend more time than not yelling at the tv for an obvious follow up question ignored or a glaring allowance of spin, I have to drop the source...at least until after electon season. It's too stressful.

I believe with every ounce of conviction that a free, unbaised press is the single most important protection of our democracy. Just look at China and other "state-run" press countries to reiterate the vital role you play. I haven't found ANY election coverage thie time around that is 100% reliable in terms of journalistic integrity (for my taste). The glaring mis-reporting or non-reporting of information by various media outlets ruined my innocence forever and opened my eyes to the risk we are taking by failing that duty in this election; bordering on manipulation of the election by our media. Either I've been bamboozled all my life, or this is a new development that is shocking and pretty darned dangerous. You have an important and vital role to play...please don't let us down. We, the American voters, need you. I appreciate your contribution and look forward to the "correction", deal?

Thank you so much for your immediate "correction", I hope. I'm counting on you.

Julie
Austin, Texas

So, with all that said:

OBAMA / EDWARDS 08 !!!!!!!

I really like reading the blogs, however, sometimes I am aghast at some comments. I can only guess lack of intelligence, fear and hate are at the root of some of them.

I would like to believe that the DNC and their two candidates had the good sense and did not leave any stone unterned when it came to background issues. Just think, a black man – he knows americas will do what they can and if there is nothing they will fabricate something. Fox news!! LOL – get real, those folks are the devil incarnate..... are they taken seriously?
Hililary as a woman candidate knows that the misogynists will pick the skin off her bones.
Shame on them if the 'good ole' white boys' find dinasaurs in their closets.

Anderson, thanks for telling Obama’s story! Wish it was longer.

Cheers...,

I want to tell you how much we appreciate the fact that you are profiling all three candidates.
Your Obama profile piece was extremely well done, like everything you do.
You exhibit a kind of journalism that we describe as excellent!
I am a Hillary supporter but look forward to the John MCCain profile also.

Thank you, Anderson!