My Opinion 4/14/08 - JB

It’s round 2,635 and this time Clinton throws a strong four punch combo only to come away with air on her gloves.

The jabbing and spin continued on this day, most as a result of Obama calling some Pennsylvanians “bitter.” Obama attempted to contain the statement explaining his remark, while Clinton remained firm on the stance that it was an unjust and generalization about all of Pennsylvania.

While this “controversy” is days old, much like cheese and wine, the three news outlets, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, must feel that the story got better as time passed (or could they have nothing of actual substance they would like to discuss).

As played as the situation is, there were a few other stories that brought to light some factors in the race.

The Los Angeles Times reported on former president Bill Clinton’s connections with a Chinese government backed web firm, a connection which seemed at odds with his wife’s stance on Tibet and the Dalai Lama.

This was a good piece because Bill Clinton addressed the issue, stating he supports his wife’s position, but the facts do not seem to support the statement, as he has received many millions of dollars from Chinese firms as well as hundreds of thousands of shares.

This brought a recollection of the Clintons’ previous statements regarding Hillary’s trip to Bosnia during her husband’s term in which both overstated the situation when saying she was under intense fire while exiting her plane.

The other newspapers did not address the issue.

The New York Times sees Sen. Clinton’s chances to make up ground dwindling and investigated whether she would take a more aggressive or passive approach in the next debate.

A consensus was not determined, as democratic strategists and experts saw a potential for either attitude.

It would seem that Clinton needs to go on the offensive, she must make headway to give herself any chance at all to make up her deficit in delegates.

The two other newspapers address the upcoming debates and the controversy in Obama’s “bitter” statement but did not analyze Clinton’s approach.

And of course, all news outlets address Obama and his “bitter” remark again.

The review of the statement this time focused on how Obama could handle the controversy and whether or not Pennsylvanians really cared about such a comment in addition to Clinton’s continued barrage of quips regarding the statement.

The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times went into the two candidates statements since the controversy began and while Obama defended his words and explained them, Clinton seems to be responding in the wrong way trying to appeal to people from all sides and not seeming genuine in the process.

The Washington Post related this situation to Obama and his stance on foreign relations, asking if he would be able to turn the controversy into an avenue in his campaign of once again explaining his differences with Hillary Clinton.