{Empty title} | The Nation

The debate was about as offensive as every one prior to it. How and why this debate has raised such a kerfluffle while every one prior to it that largely lambasted Clinton for every little nuance is beyond me. The idea that everyone is offended by Obama in particular having similar scrutiny, as crude and tasteless as it was, being focused on him is a case in point of how biased the media is.

It seems that the assumptions about Clinton, established by the right-wing media, are that, "Well, everyone knows she's a divisive calculating bitch, so let her have it." Why the press and blogs (particularly those who declare to be progressive) haven't been shouting from the rooftops until now seems to be indicative of mass ingestion of the Obama Kool-Aid. Tell me, Nation, where has your outrage been before now? If this can't get people to wake and see the bias that has been playing out in this campaign season, I don't know what will. Everyone seems to be reacting as if this is a new phenomenon, simply because Obama took a few bumps.

What do I think a debate should look like? Better question. How can we even expect to have a professional debate when the so called professionals, as qualified by their self-declared outrage and disgust, only proclaim said reaction when one candidate is put through the wringer? If the press hasn't bothered to try and self-regulate this issue until now, that my friends, is a problem that hasn't even been touched on by the current line of thought.

The outrage about the debate is a straw man. The underlying issue is the disparity in mass reaction to Obama receiving similar treatment to which Clinton has been getting since day one. If that dynamic is not understood then there is little likelihood that the press and media can hope to present a balanced and appropriate debate to the public.

At least that's my take,

A No-Vote FL Independent, critical of both Dem candidates,