You may have noticed the joy today now that Obama is close to finishing her off.
Here’s a link to comments from a Salon editor you may not have seen.
But…Hillary is a Filthy Librul. They should be for her, not against her. This is all wrong???
-Joe
What exactly is the debate here? “Media bias” is a much bigger and broader issue than any particular election cycle. If there is a “liberal bias” in the media there is no reason to expect it to favor BHO over HRC; ideologically, they’re almost identical.
Well, CNN’s wording is sort of biased:
In interest of fairness they could have done without everything before the comma, really. Plus they have a photo of her where she looks like Norma Desmond on a shooting spree (“I was the greatest first lady slash really-the-president of them all and my federal gas tax breaks will have all America pumping! Pumping! Pumping! And if it weren’t me there wouldn’t even be a United States of America— Bill and Newt wanted to trade everything west of the Rockies for Antarctica and Bangkok!”)
BTW, What, I notice your last couple of election-related threads appear to be directed against he current Dem frontrunner.
We wouldn’t be playing Operation Chaos here, would we? :dubious:
The fact that the media has spent the last 3 months piling onto Barack Obama for such stupid, non-scandals as flag pins, hippie neighbors and flamboyant pastors while simultaneously giving McCain a free ride and selling the false narrative that Hillary is somehow still in the race definitely mitigates against any suggestion that the media is unbiased. The media is still the same liberal-bashing, Republican enabling coporate tool it’s always been.
So, in nine years, can we expect the following exchange?
Reporter: I know your face. You’re Hillary Clinton. You used to be in politics. You used to be big.
Hillary Clinton: I am big. It’s politics that got small.
Er, that would be militates.
Well, if you want to be pendantic about it…
NewsBusters? Seriously?
The more likely explanation is confirmation bias by the observer.
I’m thinking more like 9 months. 
ETA: Not a pregnancy reference (though if she’d get pregnant [could happen with some surgical help or a surrogate] that might really help her campaign).
Sure, until she gets all hormonal and stuff . . .
Er, that would be pedantic.
Pssh.
Sure, all media is biased, but every week the papers are most interested in the most interesting story. They want to root for the winner and look pityingly upon the loser. What do you propose: they pick a favorite candidate and back them through good and bad? That’s what campaign members do, that’s what spouses do. I don’t expect it of newspapers.
Well, a old pol was heard to observe that “there’s nothing wrong with a little honest graft” and he was using it in the American sense of “crookedness”, not in the British sense of “hard work”.
The same could be said of old time newspapers: “there’s nothing wrong with a little honest bias”. When the Tory newspaper spoke, you KNEW it was the Tory newspaper, no one was trying to fool you into thinking they were being fair to the Grits.
I know. That was the joke.
This gave me an idea for a photo-editing project that’s now my MySpace default photo. (Feel free to copy if so inclined.)
Woosh. Did you read the definition for pedantic? 
Seeing that there was overwhelming media spin just a week ago about “why can’t Obama close the deal?”, the current spin about the near-hopelessness of Clinton’s continued campaign mainly demonstrates that overall, the news media have the attention span of six-week-old puppies.
Translation: Wow. She agrees with my spin.
One unexplored theme for that writer to tackle: McCain has gotten a pass on his refusal to disavow the Catholic-hating Rev. John Hagee in part because the news media have a fondness for McCain.