While Barack Obama is a strong candidate,with an idealistic attitude about the new direction for the White House, much more publicity has been focused on Hillary Clinton’s other running mate, Bill, her misty eye moment on the trail, her comment regarding Martin Luther King Jr. (which was taken out of context), and debate on her ability to lead because she is a female – rather than Barack Obama’s association and loyalty to his volatile, racist minister and his light experience in politics.

The media outlets have lambasted Clinton and have been screaming for her to quit when statistically, she was leading in the popular vote and had substantial votes from delegates. She was not without bargaining power and her legitimacy was ratified by the strong support of women voters and workers of all ethnicity across the nation.

Rather than target pertinent, contentious issues such as the war in Iraq, commentators such as correspondent David Shuster from MSNBC interviewed two guests about Chelsea Clinton’s role in her mother’s campaign as in some way “pimped out in some weird sort of way.” This sort of language and dialogue is reminiscent of the Rush Limbaugh days during Bill Clinton’s administration where he insulted Chelsea Clinton by calling her ugly and compared her to a dog. This sort of exchange is infantile and belongs in the school yard.

It is a personal attack with sexist undertone to debate an topic such as looks from a candidate’s family, absolutely impertinent to the how effective that candidate may be in office. Further,  Chelsea Clinton is an adult and was supporting her mother’s campaign which has been insinuated that it is in some way a form of prostitution. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, who has appeared on numerous news outlets in support of her husband’s campaign was not mentioned in the same program from MSNBC.

Again, we recall that Bill Clinton was dragged into the political foray when he made some comments about his wife’s substantial political experience and a better candidate for the presidency than Barack Obama – yet the media bombarded Hillary Clinton with questions regarding whether she would be able to “control” the other candidate if she were in office. Barack Obama was not attacked with the same furor regarding whether his wife would be a power player distraction in the White House. Not to say that Michelle Obama should be waging war with the media for the same treatment, but lets play fair. What’s good for the gals is certainly good enough for the guys.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton was an easier political target than Barack Obama, and it could be possible that Clinton made a harder sell for the White House due to her previous track record. Yet, throw in there media bias and a journalist’s preference for Barack Obama and we have a sexist, unfair campaign that has run rampant in United States media outlets in the last few months. Now journalists will focus on the divisive effect Hillary Clinton caused because she waited till now to concede – lets focus on this instead of actual issues people care about.