"Sen. Clinton calls husband a liar"
That is the screaming Page 1, top of the fold, banner headline in today's San Antonio Express-News. One would think, from the way the newspaper is playing the story, that Sen. Clinton had denounced her husband, the former president, just yesterday from the floor of the Senate. But the story is actually an Associated Press review of Hilary Clinton's new book "Living History" which is a memoir of her 8 years as First Lady. Sure, it reveals for the first time the pain she felt when her husband's infidelity was exposed during the Monica Lewinsky/Ken Starr debacle in the late 1990s. And I suppose that even makes it somewhat newsworthy. I could even see a newspaper teasing the story on its front page and then running it inside somewhere. But treating it like the major news of the day in such tabloid fashion is something I thought was beneath my local newspaper. It certainly helps to make the point that Eric Alterman makes in his book "What Liberal Media?" which is that there is no liberal bias in the news media, especially when it concerns the Clintons.

Meanwhile, runner-up for President George W. Bush has told one of the biggest lies in modern political history when he claimed repeatedly that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. So where are these tons of biological and chemical agents that Bush detailed in his State of the Union address and in multiple speeches leading up to our pre-emptive military invasion? If he was so concerned that they were there back then, why isn't he more concerned that they are missing now? Did they really end up in Syria or Iran or in the hands of Al Quaeda terrorists? Or is it more likely that these weapons were destroyed long ago and Bush purposely misread intelligence reports to make his case for a military confrontation?

I saw this quote floating around on the Internet and it is particularly apt to think about right now. "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" Yeah, and nobody lost their job either.

Interestingly enough, the AP story is not really that sensational. It is just the headline writers and editors at the Express-News whose bias is showing in this case. For example, inside on the jump page the story has the following statement "She (Hilary) concludes that what her husband did was morally wrong, but not a betrayal of the public." And what is the subhead for the story as it continues on Page 4A? "Sen. Clinton tells of betrayal"