Do you ever

wonder who is running for the U.S. Senate from Montana?

Or Georgia,

for that matter.

If you go

race in the country - I'm sure you can guess which

one I'm referring to.

The phrase

"liberal media bias" has lost its meaning and

its impact through frequent use. Pity. It so perfectly

describes the fawning with which the national media are

treating Her Majes... I mean the first lady's attempt to

use the fame that comes to her because of her husband's

career to launch her own.

Name one

other scenario in which a candidacy for Senate, announced

and who is seeking votes in a state in which she has

never lived, would get national media attention.

The whole

"will she, won't she" farce that was played out

over the fall was (excuse the expression) hilarious. Yet

it was treated quite seriously by the network TV

organizations, often preempting real news.

if I had cared enough, I would have predicted she would

not run. All the signals being sent indicated she was

backing away. Then that whole circus happened in which

she botched a direct question in front of TV cameras and

a live audience.

Yes, I'm

saying she botched it. If you watched her answer, she in

no way intended that to be taken as an affirmative

answer. "The answer is yes... I intend to run..." She

emphasized the word far more in her inflection than I did

with my underline.

My theory

is that she also intended

to follow that line with: "but the final decision

has not been made," only the caveat got drowned in

the audience reaction, and suddenly she had stumbled into

an announcement.

But the

most comical aspect of it all was that the networks all

ran the "announcement" as their top story.

In the face

of all the newsworthy goings on in the world, you have to

ask yourself why. And then you have to realize that

there's only one logical answer. The people who make

those decisions desperately want to see Hillary Clinton

elected to the Senate as a stepping stone to the

presidency.

Later those

same networks, along with some national magazines and

newspapers, made a big deal out of New York's routine

arrest of some homeless people.

The reason

many of those people are on the streets is because a

liberal Congress passed a law back in the '80s that made

it illegal to keep mentally ill people in institutions

against their will.

So all the

folks in the institutions got dumped on the streets

without any ability to care for themselves.

New York's

arrests take place only if the homeless people being

arrested refuse to go to shelters and refuse to do a

little work to pay for their keep.

If a

similar arrest had taken place in Worcester, Mass., maybe

we wouldn't have buried six firefighters last month.

But, back

to the main topic. Considering that similar arrests take

place in just about every major city everyday, the

national attention given in New York is puzzling at best.

Even with

Senate-level politics driving the story, the national

media generally leave those kinds of events to the local

and statewide media in the area directly involved.

The

existence of a liberal bias among the national media is

no longer in question, nor is the willingness of many

news organizations to abandon ethical considerations and

openly present their personal opinions in the guise of

objective news coverage.

The only

questions are how far they will go, and whether the

majority of people in this country will ever catch on.