Some reporter has been basking in the glow of Barack Obama for a little too long. Take a look at this lead from an AP writer:
"President Barack Obama made good on a campaign promise to his most important supporter Saturday night - his wife, Michelle."
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is declining to say what it cost for President Obama and his wife, Michelle, to eat dinner and take in a play in New York over the weekend."
Much less hokey, but no less biased.
So, why take a look at these two stories? I'd argue that the president and his wife going on a date in another city is newsworthy. People eat this stuff up. Also, as evidenced by the comments, they like to slam the president or defend him.
What I despise, however, is the argument of "your guy did it, so it's OK my guy does." To me, that's a weak argument in any example, from why a politician took money under the table to why he used taxpayer money to see a Broadway play.
If you don't like it, say why you don't like it. State your argument about that particular person. But don't fall back on the easy defense of "Bush did it, so shut up."
If it was wrong then, it's wrong now. If you didn't have a problem with it back then, you shouldn't have one now. If you lashed out against Bush because he did something similar, you should likewise be livid now.
When two people of opposite parties do the same thing, and you have different opinions about it because of their political party, then you use faulty logic.
The thing is, every politician does this stuff, but we're biased, and we only see the bad in the people we hate and the good in the people we like.
Being able to see that fault in ourselves, and ensuring our opinions aren't shaped by something as broad as a political party, is what we need as individual, informed, educated American voters.
But for the record, I just LOVED Michelle's dress.