Mr. Smith,

Apparently you hail from the school of political media writers who think that if a candidate is witty rather than consistent, accurate, and informative about her positions on issues vital to American voters topics, then that is a big plus. Hence Obama's pleasant but content-free inspirational MLK knock-offs are right up your alley. I have news for you. That kind of thinking, that politicians should sound like Stewart and Colbert, is what brought us Bush. I am so sorry that you are bored with a candidate who knows what she is about and doesn't care to waste time in witty repartee with the likes of your crowd. Don't advise me what to read since you can't tell the difference between political speech and entertainment.

I don't really mind all this pro-Obama bias of these supposedly neutral journalists. It's just that they are so bad at disguising it that only the mentally blind can fail to pick up on it.

Now that Clinton has lost you should pick a candidate (hint: Clinton is endorsing the Republican).

Isn't it unfair that all those pro Obama "political media writers" "can't tell the difference between political speech and entertainment." A perfect example would be Obama's thrice told demented and fabricated story about being in an airport in Bosnia after a corkscrew landing when he had to duck snipers while running to the terminal. You were right on the mark. He sounded like a satirical skit on Stewart and Colbers instead of of being "consistent, accurate, and informative" like Hillary.