I see in a follow up letter you provide a quote from a Media Matters report of one incident on one tv show. This does not prove your claim that multiple studies prove an ongoing media bias. Nice bait and switch attempt.

Sally Bedell Smith's has written a book, For the Love of Politics, that concentrates on their lives, during the WH years.

In the book, Mickey Kantor, says of Hillary:

"[she] was there everytime, fighting for how to make it bettter, how to deal with the situation." With Gennifer Flowers, Hillary was his advocate."

"After the Flowers incident Hillary worked to contain anymore "bimbo eruptions", as her friend Betsey Wright described them. As Hillary's proxy, Susan Thomases consulted NY litigator Bernie Nussbaum, about their legal rights, liabilities. how to collect facts, hire investigators. Subsequently the campaign secretly paid private detective Jack Palladino, to dig up dirt on other women, Bill Clinton had been involved with."

And this was before Monica Lewinsky.

According to the book, blaming the press for their woes was a theme of Hillary's back in 1992, as well.

I'm only 20 pages into the book, but it seems like the same patterns that ran the Clintons are running them this time.

I can't support a woman for president, who was in charge of tamping down her husband's "bimbo eruptions" to the point of hiring a private investigator, to dig up dirt. Especially, since she's been running a fairly questionable campaign this time around.

As in: you sound like a real heel. Nice phraseology, love the 'shove it up yours' touch. Really reinforces your standing.

A bit more substantively: you are purposely avoiding the fact that the guy I quoted writes for Congressional Quarterly and is intimately acquainted with the workings of the political press.

Also, I heard the bit about the 3-1 media bias on All Things Considered a few weeks back - it was no big surprise and I'm looking, I'm looking.

I have thought for a long while that Obama is a thug underneath that smiley face, that article spoke to that. Therefore, to me, it's a

great article. You LIKE Obama, therefore you don't agree. DUH!

My anger is mainly directed towards the media, who have given Barack (worship ME or else!) Obama a free ride, just like they did for GWBush in 2000/2004.

Finally, Rosieinexile, I'll take my anger over your smugness and

complacency any day of the week.

There have been no questions about the WH travel office scandal, in which Hillary fired long time WH staffers and replaced them with people from Arkansas. No questions about how she took charge of Bill's response to the Gennifer Flowers affair.

There have been no questions on file gate, or Whitewater. Or the fact that Bill pleaded guilty to perjury and was disbarred.

If Michelle Obama had lied under oath and perjured herself, would Obama be able to even think about running for the presidency?

You have nailed the Clinton's. I cannot believe she is running on "experience" Her record is woeful in the Senate. your comments to the Obama campaign to use as talking points. P.S. The other and major issue I have with Clinton is the increase in defense spending every year he was in office.

"Clinton may challenge Texas vote rules"

Because Americans are begging for whiny ninnies for president.

Details, Details: Patriot Act Reauthorization: On 12/16/05 HRC voted

No on the bill On 3/02/06 she voted YES - I'm assuming this

was after something objectionable was changed.

Do you not watch the news? I watch it obsessively and the media

bias against Hillary is astonishing. Doesn't take multiple studies

by leading experts to figure that out.

There may be a media bias against Clinton-- though I'm hard put to remember a candidate who lost double-digit primaries in a row and was still considered a viable contender. There has certainly been sexism and I think a certain amount of classism in the media coverage (I think some people never have and never will forgive Bill Clinton for being, in their opinion, 'poor white trash made good.')

The fact remains that Hillary Clinton has not been able to overcome that. She has lost twelve primary contests in a row. She is not putting her message across well and her campaign seems horribly disorganized.

How would she overcome these obstacles in a general election campaign?

What are you talking about? The "scandals" from Bill Clinton's

presidency have been gone over ad infinitum. You know,

like in the 90's? Focus people.

I must admit, I love your screen name.

You ask: "How would she overcome these obstacles in a general election campaign?"

By putting a contract out on selected members of the press? (heh heh)

Seriously, the media ARE her biggest obstacle. I believe the highly misleading coverage of the Clintons' 'racist' remarks led directly to Obama's subsequent wins. That's when his campaign really took off and any remaining anti-Hillary muzzles were removed. Can you understand how frustrating it is to favor Clinton but believe she absolutely can't get a fair hearing, simply because she is a Clinton (well, by marriage)? Aaarrgggh. So call me a masochist, but my support for Clinton becomes all the stronger the more she comes under attack. She IS the underdog now, but normal media underdog dynamics are not kicking in. Instead, the press just continues to kick her (apologies for the Nixonian touch).

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard of any potential presidential candidate being referred to as a thug. Many Clinton supporters are quick to scream something is sexist. I think what bothers me the most is that these same people are not sophisticated enough to see the subtle racism that they themselves are sometimes espousing. I can certainly recognize sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton.

And don't try to label me as a person who automatically screams racism if someone says something negative about Obama. Tis not the case; I only call it when I see it. You calling Obama an undercover thug is not only racist, but ageist.