The winds of change or blown smoke?

There's been a splitting of the households, as reported by numerous "journalists" of late. Barack V. Hillary - we've talked about this much at home.

Journalism used to be a proud profession of people taking the risks and bucking the system to get to the truth, the facts, the information our nation has a right to know. Now it seems to be nothing short of tabloid fodder that they all buy into, spreading their opinions on every issue under the sun as if it were sunshine. Does anyone (FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) REPORT the news any more? Are there reporters that don't interject with adjectives/opinions on the news they are delivering?

The media, this primary election, has been heavily slanted, understandably, towards the left. The Democratic run is breaking history. Had the woman/race issue been run on the Republican's platform than the shift would have been in that direction. What baffles me is how the media has, indeed, ran Hillary Clinton into the ground over every single move, non-move, decision, non-decision, breath, or pause that she makes. Is it safer to attack her than Barack Obama? Is it safer because she is, as a Clinton, hated beyond(without) reason or because she is a white woman? We can ignore the race factor in the press because they DO NOT tell the hard stories any longer. They are afraid of offending or losing ratings or market-ability. However I do believe it is far easier in our society to attack a candidate as a woman in the public forum than a man who is black (Asian or Hispanic as well).

People freely refer to her as a bitch, a nut cracker, cold-hearted (insinuating bitch), etc. When he is referred to in the media or at the water cooler there is NO reference to his race or gender for that matter. It's that simple. Tag on she is a Clinton and it's "no holds barred" on her and her campaign. Bill's crying doesn't come off in a positive light either however no one is holding Michelle (Obama) to any form of scrutiny and she just as passionately "stands by her man" in a role that is acceptable as a woman. Bill, a former president, and well known political marker, and a MAN is damned if he does or doesn't. Now their attacking Chelsea. Give me a break! Where is the OBJECTIVE coverage of this primary?

People are crying for change but that should also include the media. I am so sick and tired of their own pandering and kissing asses and narrow minded coverage of all things political. Don't get me wrong. I like Obama and I also like Clinton and I will be a proud registered Democrat knowing one of those candidates will be in the HOUSE because I can't fathom (perhaps self-preservation here) McCain scootin his ass across the threshold with his walker. But I just have had ENOUGH of the biased and unbalanced coverage of the two candidates.

The big slam each candidate is using is "be ready the first day" vs "be right the first day." But it was Michelle, on Larry King, that said Barack can accept and ADMIT to mistakes...but he won't make them, right? He is the one slinging the phrase "be right the first day!" So that really isn't an issue or is it just more rhetoric?

I read this today, the first positive point about Hillary Clinton that I've read from someone who is not part of any individual's campaign and it's not to stroke egos. It was a valid point. Those seeking "change" are just looking for a way to feel better without doing the work themselves or getting dirty getting involved. The true way to change is to break a sweat, get ready to struggle for what is believed in, take the leap, and commit to ideas that may seem unconventional.

Mistakes are how we learn, how we grow. I think she is a stronger candidate who will serve the house well. I think he is a well spoken man with good intentions that may not be able to pay the bill when it arrives. At least not yet. I do believe he can lead...later. I'll end the post on what I read.

"There's this big hunger for change and something different, and so she was running into a head wind that was incredibly strong," said Bill Carrick, an unaligned Democratic strategist. "She's certainly very smart, and she's got encyclopedic knowledge of policy, and her positions are well thought out. But people are more interested in being inspired and having somebody speak to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, as opposed to wanting the most substantive, policy-oriented candidate."