The major headline news today proclaimed that the Clintons have more money than the Obamas. And supposedly this fact will make it harder for Senator Clinton to win the Pennsylvania primary because the voters there are very concerned about job loss and the middle class being hurt by the economy. If you feel that the last sentence makes no sense bravo, you are intelligent enough to see past the bias in the media against Hillary Clinton and in favor of the “Phenomenon” that is known as Barry-Barack Obama.
Is the headline the whole story? Does this fact deserve to change the voting? How would Senator Clinton be at a barbeque? Would you rather have a poor homeless person with no idea how to manage money as your next President? I am not saying that Senator Obama is poor or homeless, far from it but I am pointing out that it should not be a point against someone because they were able to make money.
It is all in the way you emphasize the facts involved. Since the media is deciding which stories to print or publicize don’t they have an obligation to do so fairly?
Many years ago the then latest movie in the James Bond series, “Goldfinger” opened across the country. According to a first hand account from my brother the marquee at a theater in Seattle Washington proclaimed for the entire world to see that the currently running feature film was:
“GOLDFINGER – Starring Sean Connery as James Bond – with Honor Blackman as PUSSY GALORE”
The article in today’s Newsday is typical of that kind of ‘gotcha’ journalism that has pervaded our lives. Many articles and news stories in America these days that purport to give the whole story are actually fact deficient one-sided sensationalized stupidity skewed toward the view the writer wants you to hear and only that view.
If you actually read the entire article, something most people do not seem to do these days, you might find the other side of the story. And that side is equally as important as and far more damaging to a different candidate.
Near the end of the story that is masquerading as breaking news are two tidbits about the average salaries of all the US Senators and some of their charitable donations. The Clinton family is actually quite low on the scale of Senatorial salary, as are the Obamas but quietly the Clintons gave a far greater percentage of their income to charity than most others. They easily donated a much greater percentage of their income than did the Senator from Chicago who claims to be for workers rights.
One other point is the timing of an article. As with the Bush administration and their timely leaking of any story of so-called National Security every time they needed to cover something up this story comes at a critical point in the Democratic campaign. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe is this year's Karl Rove and he is unbeleivably good. He has long sought to reveal the Clinton money and this story reeks of the smell of the Obama camp. Their desire for a knockout punch in the bout against Clinton and the media's willingness to second his wishes speak volumes.
Once again the media is putting the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-La-ble.
Sometimes HEAD-line News should actually be called by a different body part!