A last word of caution to today's Democratic voters: Don't let the press and its longstanding bias in favor of Sen. Clinton affect your vote. Choose your candidate on the merits, not on the fact that the media heavyweights are "in the tank" for Hillary in a number of crucial ways.
Oh, sure, you've seen those Saturday Night Live routines that suggest the press is orgasmic over Barack Obama, and hostile to the noble and martyred Sen. Clinton. And with her Daily Show appearance, it's starting to look like Hillary's locked down the all-important comedian vote.
An anxious nation is waiting to hear who will get the coveted Shecky Greene endorsement.
Has it ever occurred to the Comedy Bloc that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the facts have a pro-Obama bias?
The fact is that the bias isn't one-sided, in either direction. Chris Matthews' treatment of Hillary Clinton is reprehensible, and has been for years. And the questioning in those debates has seemed tougher on Clinton...lately.
But do you remember the early debates? The ones where Clinton was placed in the center, as if the other seven or eight candidates were her supporting cast? The ones where she was often given the first question and the last question -- and most of the ones in between? Where was the outrage then? Why weren't they putting up skits about that?
The treatment of the other candidates in those early debates was a reflection of a long-standing pro-Hillary bias among reporters covering the campaign. Reporters, who no doubt thought a Hillary candidacy would make great copy, faithfully pushed the themes the Clinton campaign wanted them to push. And they were dubious themes: That Hillary was the most "experienced" candidate, that she was the "front-runner" and almost "inevitable," that the accomplishments of Bill's Presidency were her accomplishments...
The press has spent the last year pushing so many pro-Hillary ideas that it's almost...well, comic.
That's not a reason to vote against her, of course, any more than his relatively soft treatment in the last couple of debates is a reason to vote against Obama. (Although Obama was certainly grilled about Louis Farrakhan, who he doesn't associate with, while Hillary was able to skate on her endorsement from Ann Coulter. And compare the coverage of Tony Rezko with the lack of interest the press has shown in that Dubai-related investment deal that stands to net Bill -- and therefore Hillary -- a cool $20 million.)
Don't vote for candidates based on their press coverage, pro or con. Vote for them based on whether they voted for the Iraq war "with conviction" (thanks for that, Jennifer Nix). Vote for them based on whether they're irresponsible in reacting to ethnic slurs about their opponents. Vote for them based on whether they provide talking points John McCain can use against their opponent. Or find some other reason to vote for the candidate of your choice. Just don't pick a candidate based on how the press behaves.
That would be a joke.