He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types"...
Why I still don't get, and something that the most ardent Lincoln supporters I've talked to haven't been able to explain to me either is this, why didn't he abolish slavery in the Union BEFORE abolishing it in the Confederacy, a region that was basically another country?
There's a great explanation on DailyPaul of why Ron has a serious chance at getting the nomination; I'm personally a newb to all this political process, but the guy lays it down very well, check it out:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/36650
I actually believed that we could get the Republican party to its "foundations", but guess they're just reacting to their own collectivist nature. We need to focus only on what Jefferson, Paine, Jackson and the other Founding Fathers taught, not chase a party root that was rotten from the start.
The Republican Party was Communist from the start!!!
Many people (including myself) believe that the Republican Party has abandoned its foundations of small government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. But, we were ALL WRONG! Check this out:
Source
Sorry for the...
Even though I smoke marijuana (daily, and pretty substantious amounts of it, lol, but that's another story), it's sick that this sort of bias attacks are piling on and on. They're really focused on this.
I loved how last year ALL the news outlets were saying that fundraising (aside from actual votes) was the true measure of support a candidate has...then came the third quarter info. When Ron started making "top tier candidate" money, they all started disregarding fundraising's importance. WTF...
It's amazing that the first true libertarian in A LONG TIME to actually have a chance to win the nomination is being smeared so badly by these so called classical liberals.