But what I find worse is that it's part of a general pattern of taking perfectly normal political activities - in this case a family member helping out with a campaign - and talking about them as if they're unseemly, or corrupt, or inappropriate, or seedy, or sleazy, etc... The press has a long history of doing this with the Clintons, holding them to a weird standard that no one else is held to.

The sneering, adolescent drooling is objectionable too. Anything goes: speculatiation accepted as fact, innuendo, inventions from whole cloth. It's so schoolyard, like making menacing noises at the camera accusing the Clintons' [dramatic rodent] of being naked under their clothes.

A deeply unhinged panelist can even accuse Sen. Clinton of having someone's cat murdered -- out of spite -- on prime time, and not only NOT be asked to provide evidence of this outlandish charge but be treated like an ordinary, mainstream news analyst!

When Romney suspended his campaign he joined McCain in smearing the Dems as surrender monkeys: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

No, I don't.  I'm just glad to see some push-back toward the media.  I wish it were in terms of institutional biases that the corporate media hold, but given how long I've waited for said push-back, I'll take it even if it is merely couched in terms of "personal bias" or even "sexism".  Personally, I'm sick of white guys, old and young, staking out careers for themselves and trying to make themselves look smart/astute/hip whatever by making people who aren't white guys (or their honorary substitutes) small.  Talk radio sensibilities are problematic on talk radio, on the net, and on national, cable television.  Part of the reason folks aren't that upset about what Shuster said is that that kind of talk is commonplace among chattering folks who seek to use language and technology to present themselves as "smart" or "skilled" or "in the loop".

I don't think Tweety's cage is as gilded as some might think.

Just today I heard Jack Cafferty say that Barack Obama had not attacked Hillary Clinton at all before New Hampshire, while infact that is all he has been doing since the beginning of his campaign.

http://www.attacktimeline.com

Second event:  intro of HRC by a person who knew her as an undergrad.  Nice intro.  Tears in eyes.  So what?

I think Greg is clearly right that it is more than just MSNBC that is biased.  And this obvious bias should give pause for thinking people.  Remember how Al Gore was treated by the media in 2000?  Remember how the media failed to professionally reject the false claims of the Swiftboaters in 2004? (And yes I know John Kerry bears some responsibility for not responding sooner, but objective media analysis of the Swiftboater claims and their background was practically nonexistent.)