The one upside to CNN cooking the books for Hillary on Thursday? The karmic retribution that John Edwards must endure after having junked debates hosted by Fox News because of populist bias towards Republicans, only to be run over by CNN and its elitist bias towards Hillary. Or as Noel Sheppard puts it:

Add it all up, and CNN stocked the questioning members of the audience with -- at the very least, as who knows what else the blogosphere will identify?!? -- a former intern for Sen. Reid, a former head of the Arkansas Democrat Party, and a prominent Muslim leader.

Honestly, folks, the Democrats made a huge stink about not appearing in any debate sponsored by Fox News for fear of its biases. Yet, it seems a metaphysical certitude that FNC, with all the focus upon it, wouldn't have dared exhibit such obvious partiality.

In fact, just imagine the uproar that would have emanated from press members if Fox had employed such shenanigans. This likely would have been the lead story of all three broadcast network news programs Friday, as well as featured every hour on the hour at CNN and MSNBC.

Of course, maybe this explains why the Democrats refused the FNC debates in the first place, which would be an interesting story for a news magazine like "60 Minutes," "Dateline," or "20/20" if they weren't all vested in the same hypocrisy.

Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?

As an aside, I want to congratulate and applaud the work of the bloggers mentioned in this report. As much as the legacy media disingenuously position themselves as advocates of the people and free speech, the new media continue to be the only ones demonstrating democratic principles our Founding Fathers would be in any way proud of.

Update: "I'm glad CNN randomly selected ordinary people like you and me. We wouldn't want anyone to think that Hillary was shielded from all of the tough, grueling questions that Tim Russert asked."