A Perennial Press Opera

I think someone at The Newsweek read the latest addition of The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10689547
But could he deliver?

After reading this depressing article I find myself wondering why anybody should take anything that comes from the MSM with any seriousness. This is nothing but "in-your-face" drivel, basically confirming that you are a bunch of unethical cretins that have betrayed the sacred trust that the country and the constitution has bestowed on you. How can you sleep with yourself after your actions help put GW Bush in the White House, and usher the war in Iraq? Now you have help narrow the presidential pool to an empty suit and an old war monger? And you boast about it? Have you no shame?

To say that the media is favoring Sen Obama is obviously debatable. It may be the fact that the press doesn't have as much dirt on him as they have on Sen Clinton. Also, Sen Obama has revealed the most damaging parts of his history, so there's no controversy; he's admitted it. People keeps saying that he is a great public speaker as if it is a bad thing (JFK and Ronald Reagan come to mind). The ability to motivate is one of the key qualities of a leader. I???m not saying that its the only quality, experience is very important. However, it???s odd that with the 35 years of experience Sen Clinton uses as the cornerstone of her campaign, she and Sen Obama agree on 95% of the issues (by her own admission). So maybe he's learned a lot in his "limited" experience. I think that the idea of a Clinton team is very appealing for a lot of Americans, but what must be understood is that ultimately it will be Hillary not Bill making the decisions. I think both candidates are qualified to hold the office of President. It comes down to who will be able to do the most for the American people when they get to that office. They agree on 95% of the issues so it can reasonably be stated that the programs and policies they would try to institute as president would be very similar if not the same on most issues. Now, look at the ability to unite a Congress and get them to agree on legislation that is positive for our nation. Sen Obama has been criticized for his willingness to reach across the aisle and team with republicans to try and push legislation through (this is not the political norm). I believe this is a part of change in Washington. A President that is a good motivator and focused on unification is what's needed to promote change. As for the so called "racist" comments made by Fmr Pres Clinton; comparing Sen Obama to Jessie Jackson might not have been intended to be racist, but it certainly was meant to undermine the seriousness and validity of the Obama campaign (there are plenty of white candidates that win states and later pull out that he could have mentioned). To compare him to Dr. Martin Luther King, one of the greatest orators in history, was unfair because Dr. King had never been elected to national public office and Sen Obama has. While it may not have been racist, the speculation alone was damaging. Bill Clinton is a smart man, he took a calculated risk and it didn't play out in the way he intended. Either way this election goes, it has been the most exciting primary I've seen in a long time. No matter who you favor, get out and vote. Also don't get so caught up in bitterness that you don't vote in the general election or worse vote for McCain, because your candidate doesn't get the nomination (that's what the GOP is banking on). If that happens you need to question whether you're really sexist or racist. I know Sen McCain doesn't agree with 95% of the policy of either democratic candidate. Don't give him t

well from reading all the comments looks like we wil have another 4 years of a repubilican president...the clinton people will not vote for obama and the obama people wont vote if he doesn't get it, so who ever gets will probably lose in november. I have voted dem. ALL my life (62 years old) but if might set this one out also if .......

Thanks for the article! I have never subscribed to conspiracy theories and was beginning to suspect I was becoming paranoid as i grow older. But I see the bias of the media becoming shameful. When I saw a headline that read that "an ally of Clinton" had made a remark I expected to read about someone very close to the campaign. In reading the article it was not so. But how many people bothered to read past the headlines? Although, printing remarks made by someone who is"now a ferocious critic of the couple" seems just to perpetuate what has become the status quot. I have always backed the democratic candidate in a presidential election but if Obama gets the nomination I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for a question mark. At least with McCain I know who I'm getting.

Obama is most certainly the darling of the press. If he was scrutinized as much as Hilary is, then Im not so sure he'd be the front runner right now. As a presidential candidate with little investigation of his background or his actual opinion on policy, the press unfairly gives him a free ride on his lack of substantive policy knowledge. While Hillary has real policy knowledge and answers to the serious questions facing the country, she uniformly receives bad press.

I voted for Obama. In fairness, I think Clinton is a very qualified, likeable, experienced qualified equal candidate. However, since voting, I'm having buyer's remorse! I have noticed in the media (all networks - including Fox), Obama receives better treatment . The media covers him with more positive spin, there are no discussions or challenging him on the serious issues, nor his attacks on the clinton camp. On the other hand, Clinton receives less coverage, more negative spin, she is constantly challenged on her every move and word. Clinton has even challenged on her wardrobe and hair selections! Are the candidate really competing with each other? No! The networks are competing to sell the American veiwer the candidate they favor! By the power of suggestion, in my opinion, the media networks are marketing and selecting our presidential candidates. Over the months, it's becoming increasing visible the media favors Obama over Clinton. Which should be of no surprise, as Obama's campaign organization is managed by a media guru. However, from my perception, there is a disturbing trend happening with in the media coverage of these two candidates. No networks or person, wants to be preceived as a raciest, therefore its appears more and more, Obama is getting special treatment with the networks. Clinton is not being afforded the same consideration.... it's become acceptable to be a sexist with the media. Equal rights means equal for all!

In my opinion, Clinton is vetted, old news with the networks, therefore less coverage is being afforded her, not as exciting, i.e. the rating game. Bill Clinton is correct about one thing, Obama has got a free ride with the media and continues to recieve special treatment. Which is not fair, it gives his campaign a huge advantage over Clinton.

Just a couple of random thoughts after reading all the comments. First, if you support Clinton, great. But it would be kind of nice if you knew how to spell her name. For the record, it is Hillary not Hilary. These aren't typos, there repeated several times in the posts below. And yes, I'll probably have typos as well so sharpen your arrows.
Second, are we really concerned that Obama smokes? Really? Was Bill Clinton less effective because he smoked cigars? Maybe it is the brand we don't agree with? Really?
Third, After Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries to dates that were unacceptable to the Democratic National Committee -- in hopes of gaining a more meaningful role in the nominating process for big states -- the DNC announced that delegates chosen in the rouge primaries would not be seated at this summer's party convention. Clinton and Obama both agreed to this. In spite of this, Hilary won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan....where she was the only name on the ticket. I agree these delegates should be heard, and in order to do that they should hold a primary where both candidates can campaign and both legitimately put their names on the ballot. How many Obama or Clinton voters stayed home because they know the delegates weren't going to be seated? Let all of them participate and step back from the sleaziness of trying to get in this way.

analysts of cnn : James Carvill, Paul Begala, On ABC the political analyst and Sunday talk host isStephanopoulis. CNBC shows Hillary hugging Chris Wallace before the NH primary..She is repeatedly asked soft ball questions. The female press rushes to her defense when she is criticized. This is by no means the press being tough on her. The press is loaded with her sycophants and acts defensive of her when she or Bill complains. I was a Hillary fan but this primary season has turned me off

To GOLDENAH: You say that you ACCEPT ALL of what the press "reflects" in what they experience and see with the candidates... Therein lies the problem with today's voters and their influence by the press

There is no doubt that the media is pro-Obama. From MSNBC and their vile comments about Senator Clinton and her family to print media, it's been one sweet road for Obama and a steep climb for Senator Clinton. The press should begin immediately to remember that she is not her husband; she is her own person. She is bright, energetic and capable and that has nothing to do with the tonal quality of her voice, facial expressions or her clothes. Obama is an empty suit. If the press was doing its job, this would be evident to more voters. I am a strong Democrat and I will NEVER vote for him...

The role of the press is to be skeptical, not a propaganda unit of the President or our government. I accept that all of the press only reflect what they experience and see with the candidates and incumbents. If the result is hostility, then so be it.

Thanks for finally at least acknowledging what most of us astute Democratic voters have been noticing for months: the media is ridiculously biased towards St. Obama, but won't say why. Everything he does is of the highest motive and perfect plan, and Hillary's every move is cold, calculatng and done with evil-intentions. Give me a break. I don't buy the excuse that its just because Bill was president, but I'm happy the gross bias was acknowledged anyway. I want the media to start asking the hard questions of Obama: what are going to tell children and teens about using cocaine and pot, that its ok, and one day you can become President too? What have you actually accomplished in your first term as Senator? What evidence do you have that you will be a good President? Why have you decided to leave out 15 million Americans from health care coverage?

PLEASE do you JOB, media, and ask the tough questions instead of canonizing an undeserving speechmaker.

Comment: Superbly Experienced??? Can you please give me one of her accomplishments since she has been a Senator? She stood up for the first responders to the 911 attacks who several years later had lung problems and the goverment was blowing them off.

This is not about it being a search for truth. This is about spin. Is Billary experienced? Absolutely. She supported NAFTA, had the whole Walmart thing going on, and of course Whitewater. Now she cries about the media, cries about Michigan and Florida (Even though she knew going in they would not count) and anything else she thinks will help her get the nomination. You are all smarter than that.

This is not about it being a search for truth. This is about spin. Is Billary experienced? Absolutely. She supported NAFTA, had the whole Walmart thing going on, and of course Whitewater. Now she cries about the media, cries about Michigan and Florida (Even though she knew going in they would not count) and anything else she thinks will help her get the nomination. You are all smarter than that.