Hillary Clinton’s Schedule Released – To Wit – Big Deal

Under pressure from the media, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has released her White House calendar from the time she spent there as First Lady. The dates that are of most interest, according to an article by Brian Ross of ABC, among other outlets, are those in 2000 that coincide with visits between Monica Lewinsky and then President Bill Clinton. What is of import? Mrs. Clinton’s presence in the same, huge abode, while these visits occurred. Are there no depths to which the press will sink? Apparently not. The accompanying graphics - a photograph of Hillary Clinton, one of Monica Lewnsky and one of the “blue dress”, headline the article and are as malicious as its contents. What boggles the mind further is the insistence by ABC “News” that Brian Ross is pat of its Investigative Unit. Have they no shame? When will the news organizations in this country begin to cover this election cycle with articles that outline difference in policy between the candidates? There seems to be no end to the articles written in favor of (or seriously about) Obama or McCain - outlining how presidential one looks, or how the other has visited a place of import. Granted, Obama has had some negative coverage over his association with a racist Pastor, that for all purposes is not particularly relevant given the Bill of Rights that are so often referred to by this same press. Overall, the coverage given to these two candidates has been valid. Surely, Hillary Clinton has made important visits, given speeches and has policy differences that could be reported upon and analyzed; yet, the press chooses to focus on her role as a wife, during a time when her husband was having an affair? When will they lay off on commenting about her looks, her dress, her hairstyle, her husband (reminder to the press, he’s not running) and focus instead on the facts? It has becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between ABC News and the Globe, Sun or National Enquirer.

As a conservative feminist, I feel that Mrs. Clinton does not deserve this type of “good old boy” treatment from the press, rather, all things being equal (who am I kidding), I long for articles that outline her policies, perhaps her voting record while in the Senate, and possibly what experience she might have gained as First Lady (rather than the drivel reported by ABC). Although, as a conservative I might not agree with 80% of Mrs. Clinton’s politics; when reviewing the garbage the media dishes up, I find myself identifying with this candidate on a personal level. This article, among others, is possibly the worst expression of gender bias I have personally witnessed in my lifetime. Will it never end?