I READ THE EMAILS TODAY, OH GOD


and I have a couple of answers.

The Obamans, no doubt depressed and more than a little pissed off about what happened yesterday, have come out of the online woodwork to attack me for having the temerity to suggest that this morning's Post-Gazette headlines were an obvious -- if not necessarily conscious -- bit of bias. One emailer, whose sense of irony is obviously as impaired as his judgment, suggested that I was biased against the media's very fair coverage of Senator Hope and Change. Another, intimating either that I'm surreptitiously supporting Hillary or that I'm secretly attracted to men, urged me to come out of the closet already.

So here, as a small dam against these babbling brooks of bitterness, are a few simple truths:

1) I am not secretly attracted to men (though I do think George Clooney and Viggo Mortensen are as hot and talented as any human beings on the planet).

2) I honestly don't know for whom I will vote on April 22nd. I may not vote for anyone. But I do know that the last thing our Democratic process (such as it is) needs is a double-standard-bearing mainstream media cheerleading for one candidate.

3) If Obama had won last night, his name absolutely would have been in the big, bold headline. As it SHOULD have been. Because HE would have been the story. Just as Hillary is -- or should be -- the story today. Just as her name should have been -- but was not -- in the big headline this morning. That PG headline buried the lede and the name, and so at least a little of its credibility.

I don't expect you to take my word on the first one -- after all, in these days of Ted Haggerty and Larry Craig, not even a wife, a couple of kids, and a profound profession of faith are enough to keep that door open -- but that's not really the point anyway.

The point is that by any objective standard, the observations I make in #s 2 & 3 here, and so in the previous post, are clear and reasonable and pretty damned hard to disagree with. In fact, I would suggest that the only reason you would even think to disagree with the notion that we don't need a double-standard-bearing mainstream media cheerleading for one candidate would be if most media outlets and pundits just happened to be cheerleading for your candidate.

Posted: Wed - March 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM          

©