Howard Kurtz wrote a whole story Wednesday entertaining as a serious idea -- without any conservative rebuttal or extended break for belly laughs -- that Hillary Clinton suffers from a "harsher microscope" from the national media. It might be arguable that Barack Obama has received even better coverage lately, but it's like arguing that your little brother got a bigger stick of cotton candy than you did. The idea that "harsh" describes her media coverage is ridiculous.
For a quick critique, simply look at other stories in the Post. In the Style section right underneath the woe-is-Hillary piece: "The Magic & Bill Show, Providing The Charisma Assist." On the front page, Post investigators are hammering Rudy Giuliani by association with "Giuliani's Kerik Woes Resurface Through Informant: Candidate Distancing Himself From Former Confidant." Does this in any way make Hillary's case? Or make it look like the laugh line it is?
