I finally found a link (why didn't I look here before?) to a media site that is not so blatantly biased against Hillary. I don't have much time in my life to be a true news junkie or politics wonk, but I stay abreast enough to know a bias when I see one. I don't know exactly why much of the press is so anti-Hillary, but it is obvious to me that it is. Clearly, I am pro-Hillary, so that explains my own bias. My reasons for supporting Hillary also explain why I am honestly confounded by the media's -- how can I put this? -- naivete. I was listening to NPR coverage the other day (even NPR doesn't seem as even handed as I'd like), and they aired an interview with a black leader in Harlem (can't remember who). This guy -- admittedly, from a generation older than many of Obama's supporters -- noted that not only had Hillary been to Harlem "hundreds" of times (compared with Obama, who I believe he said had been there twice) but that his vote was for Hillary because of this: We are at war, he said, and we need a person in the White House who can, on Day 1, consult a pretty hefty Rolodex. Sure, either Hillary or Obama will have the same 100-day honeymoon to try to enact some similar domestic proposals (but even there, I think Hillary has many more years of experience -- and, yes, I do think experience is important); however, in the end, I'm afraid much of the next four (or more likely eight) years is going to be devoted to dealing with the war Bush has left us and the huge deficit (largest, I think, to date?) that has resulted. I am just not comfortable leaving this war mess to a newbie. And at the same time, health care and education reform are my No. 1 domestic priorities -- and Hillary has the experience in both policy arenas. As the fellow from Harlem so aptly put it, this is not the time for "on-the-job training." Anyway, thank you, Salon.com, for providing media coverage that doesn't make my skin crawl.