Who is Clintons4McCain's Target Audience?

Although I’m having fits about the John Edwards allegations myself, I find this article about media bias at Clintons4McCain rather interesting. Although an author isn’t cited at Clintons4McCain, the original article was posted by Rob Port at Say Anything and reposted at Agoravox. Mr. Port is “[a] conservative political blogger from North Dakota.”

Clintons4McCain is the co-creation of Cristi Adkins and Peter Boykin. The group, and its site, is allegedly by and for Democrats and Independents who are voting for John McCain because their preferred candidate is not the presumptive Democratic nominee. If this is true, I find the choice of article curious as it’s not exactly intended to appeal to Democrats; rather, it plays on Conservative complaints about Democrats and a perceived "liberal media bias":

Why Is The Media Ignoring John Edwards’ Sex Scandal?

Especially in light of continued rumors about Edwards being a choice for either VP or perhaps AG in the Obama administration?

If you thought the media’s adulation of Obama was bad, the double standard they’re clinging to on Edwards’ love child problem is perhaps even worse.

[I’ve snipped a lengthy cite from Slate]

C’mon. If this were happening to a Republican every citizen in America would know all the gory details. As it stands now if you were to ask one of your non-political junkie friends what was going on with Edwards’ love affair they’d probably give you a blank stare.

Edwards gets a pass because Edwards is a liberal and that’s just the way it is. At some point Americans are going to have to wake up and realize that the journalists they’ve trusted to bring them sound, thorough and objective reporting aren’t doing it any more.

The article focuses on media bias at work; this is not my focus at the moment (admittedly, I am tempted to agree with this if reports that the LA Times is squashing blog commentary at their site are true).

That Clintons4McCain chose to repost this article suggests that the group is not so much pro-Clinton as it is pro-GOP. For example, it repeats the oft-heard complaint, "if this was about Republicans. . ." (and yes, Democrats rely on this complaint as well. In fact, I used it the other day), and it utilizes the now-perjorative term "liberal" to define Edwards. Yet these are minor items. More striking is that the author claims that the “media adulation of Obama” is bad, but the cover up of the Edwards story is possibly worse. This is a surprising redirection of attention for a site ostensibly supportive of Clinton, and McCain by default: Edwards isn’t running for president anymore, and rumors that he's on Obama's VP list are just that--rumors. Why use a pro-Clinton forum to attack Democrats who are no longer in the race?

I'm just asking.

Update: My mistake. It seems they are discussing the Edwards mess at the LA Times.