|
I had a riot with reading through the Wall Street Journal (September 2 edition) today. It's been like forever since I ever read a full newspaper rather than internet news articles, blogs, 'n stuff; and it's hilarious. Like they're trying to balance both sides by being biased for either in different articles.
Most of the actual news were "subtly" anti-McCain/Palin. One tried to deliver an "unbiased" account on the nature of the town where Palin was mayor, but ended up with presenting it as a case of Corporate America intruding on good old frontier nature. You know the deal: Wal-Mart, parking lots, and McDonalds where there was once one street, three houses, and six billion moose. Another indirectly asked why calling out Palin's role as a mother of five is politically incorrect when it has a direct bearing on just how much this VP/potential President will be able to devote herself to this task.
But these also balanced out nicely with the hilarious Opinion articles, which are unapogetically partisan for the Republicans. One kind columnist declared, with not a hint of irony, that "Mr. Obama may be able to offer voters all the attractions of high rhetoric, but Mr. McCain can offer something else: an uncomplicated love of country."
My God, Zeus, Protector of Guests, etc., etc., I nearly collapsed in mirth when I finished that.
P.S. Unfortunately, it isn't all fun reading through all that though. One long article confirmed once again how shallow voters are when WSJ pointed out that a pathetic ad hominem campaign, "Obama is like Britney Spears," actually had an effect on the voters in the polls.
...why?
|