Has anyone else notice the gushing free pass the junior senator from Illinois has gotten from the media and press.
Honestly, I'd contest that point in the first place. It's very interesting that the theme of press bias is woven through the Clinton campaign's narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism but don't seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism.
The first charge is just bogus, in my view. Like Clinton, Obama has developed position papers
on all the major issues. Clinton has been able to highlight the differences between her proposals and Obama's -- for example, the fact that her plan for universal health insurance includes a mandate, whereas Obama's does not. In debates, she has had the chance to challenge his approach and defend her own. It is not the media's fault if voters do not agree with Clinton that nominating Obama would be a "leap of faith," nor is it the media's fault if she is not effective at campaigning against her opponent.
It is true that the candidates' stump speeches are different: Clinton's is about experience and preparedness, Obama's about hope and change. But journalists didn't write those speeches, campaign speechwriters did. And any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would not be doing their job.
Reporters are busy combing through Obama's personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out.
But it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning.
Finally, a A thought experiment.