We all know at this point how I feel about the Times and their approach to writing politically geared articles. I’ve even had a scuffle or two with some of the writers in an effort to express myself.

So when checking the news sites this morning I ran across Obama’s past could be an issue and immediately thought “oh great. now the post has gotten in on the act.” I read the entire article with an attitude just waiting to gather information that would help me compose an accusing and scathing email to Lois Romano.

Lois, KUDOS on a job well done! I think that this is a wonderfully biased article that clearly leads me to embrace Obama’s openness and puts him in a more favorable light as a presidential hopeful. Now I say biased because I didn’t feel as though the article weighed in good and bad and I was looking for some bad. Perhaps I have been so disillusioned by the Times that the article isn’t biased…….maybe I was just overly impressed with it and can only see it as good. What do you guys think?

One thing I did appreciate for the sake of fairness is that the author did not focus on one sole political party for comparisons in the article. Clinton, Bush, McCain….there’s face time for both sides.

Excerpt:

Obama’s partisan opponents and experts said it is too early to know whether the admissions will be a liability because the public seems to be enthusiastically embracing his openness at this point. What’s more, they note that it is better for a politician to disclose his own transgressions, rather than be put on the defensive by revelations.

more…