Jan 16, 2008 05:07
I was reading some news articles about the primary race in Michigan. Mostly from the Republican view since that is what I mostly vote for. I came accross this little gem in the article I was reading on Yahoo News:
A mere 20 percent of eligible voters were expected to show up at polling stations across frigid and snowy Michigan; turnout was likely to be depressed by a Democratic race of little to no consequence. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only top contender on the Democratic ballot.
I must have missed that news article where Obama and Edwards resigned from the race and gave it to Clinton. Or did Bill pull some strings and got Obama and Edwards removed from the Democratic voting ballot?
After reading that little snippet I pretty much discounted the entire news article. My feeling was, "Biased much?" The news media flouts its mantra of neutrality but in fact most journalists do have an agenda and are biased. The real trick is though will they ever admit it to the general public and to themselves.
Edit: I made an earlier edit but the internets ate them. I read in an unrelated article that Michigan, because of the early caucus, have no delegates for the Democratic Convention.