Coonsey, this never ending rant is starting to get a tad old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7758673.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/

Just to name a few --- Clintons are first and foremost.

If you don't get that by now, you never will.

You are right, it proves my point. For the next week we will hear the pros and cons of Hillary being SOS. Forgetting about the REST of the TEAM that OBAMA selected.

Bill Clinton had the NERVE to come out with his own statement APPROVING of Obama's selection of Hillary.

Give me a break.

I would like nothing MORE than to come out 3.5 years from now and apologize for my attacks on Hillary and I will DO SO --- if I am found to be wrong (she doesn't try and run for pres in 2012, and if she does what Obama tells her to (and not send out leaks saying the opposite - as Colin Powell is later to report he did)during those years.

In fact, the thought just occurred to me, that in about a year or two, we could be hearing about Hillary's resignation from SOS. She'll claim in public that she needs to be with her family; but behind the scenes we'll hear she couldn't get Obama to listen to her.....yadda yadda yadda.

SNORE...

Your rant is not "fact" as I have experienced it, unless you leave cable TV news out of your definition of "the media," and consider the blogosphere as "the media."

I turned on the tube an hour ago actually hoping to see "them" yapping on Obama's National Security picks, hoping to see some clips from the press conference.

I haven't seen that at all until just now. I've been flipping from MSNBC to CNN to Fox and what I've seen is "them" talking about the ecomony--the recession announcement, the stock market, Paulson's upcoming press conference, what Bernake said, Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Right now CNN also just did stories on Mumbai, Bangkok and Nigerian riots. Obama's picks have only been mentioned in passing, with one or two sentences, until just now they started the first spot on it, about a two minutes long, they had one quick talking head on it, and now they have moved back to the economy.

Consider the idea that they cover what produces people tuning in, because it's for profit. And a lot of people don't care as much about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as much as the liberal blogosphere does. That's because lots of the people in the U.S. don't care that much about foreign policy (something that bugs me, but is is reality.) Many more do care about the economy.

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman will probably cover it heavily on their shows because they cater to the liberal blogosphere market, including people like you who obviously think all the myths about the Clintons and Obama are an interesting topic.

The media will focus on the Clintons because there is a long history of drama that generates ratings, which benefits advertisers, which keeps their businesses afloat in economically hard times... etc., etc.

Why pay money for research when you have hundreds of pre-packaged Clinton storylines paid for by millions of Scaife and Moon dollars?

I have made my opinion known that I think Mrs. Clinton is a shrewd pick... not merely because she is qualified and powerful, but because she draws media wattage away from Obama. 24 hour media will generate sensationlism against Democrats and cover for Republicans because Democrats have a history of occasionally thinking outside the corporate box. To throw the fake hysteria at a Clinton will create the necessary fatigue and keep the purist progressives armed with poo to fling.

Honestly, coonsley, I would reccomend you get a new hobby. Just because the media devotes attention to a subject does not make that THE STORY. You should know better than that.