Shameless Time and Courics Big Question

News magazines are exceedingly frustrating in their coverage of politics. Certainly it is difficult to be totally objective in covering politics, however some publications don't even try to mask their allegiances. Time magazine for the seventh time has Barak Obama on its cover with the entire issue dedicated to every aspect of his life and candidacy. Time is to liberal politics what Pravda was to the old Soviet Union, it is clear and away a propaganda publication. This may seem a little blunt but in one striking example David Von Drehle makes a yeoman effort to dispel us of Mr. Obama's lack of experience: “...friends of Obama's like to point out that 12 years as a lawmaker is more experience than Abraham Lincoln.” Certainly we expect friends of Obama to think that he's qualified, why such attribution would bolster his article is a mystery. The obvious retort is Obama is certainly no Lincoln. If outrageous comparisons to Lincoln don't sway you Drehle makes an even more extraordinary claim:

Voters accustomed to evaluating governors and generals may have a hard time deciding what value to place on a stint of "organizing." But it was surely real work. Reading Obama's account of his efforts to organize the residents in a single Chicago neighborhood, with weeks of toil going into staging a single meeting, is like watching a man dig the Panama Canal with one Republicaa Swiss Army knife.

Paleeeze!

The whole problem with all this, of course, is the false notion that this is simply reporting the story as it is seen and not the viewpoint of the writer. When Mr. Drehle reports what is obvious in front of him, and us, he has to stretch and distort the idea of experience itself and then exaggerate what little experience Obama has. That Obama may or not have the experience necessary to become presidents is not a matter of opinion, so it seems, and if you ever had to argue the point, don't site someones opinion of the matter, just look at the news.



What is the world coming to?

Katie Couric the anchorperson of CBS news seems mystified that the Democrats would pick Obama, not because of what he stands for or what little experience he has but for what it is he departs from and that is the days of the Clinton white house or even for the missed opportunity of electing John Edwards. Couric in an interview during the Democratic convention asked "Do you think voters want to see a couple who are faithful to one another?" Huh?? Adjectives are difficult to find in describing this jaded mindset. Just who would not want to see a first couple not faithful to each other? Would this drive people to McCain?