In the dictionary next to the definition of “ObamaMedia” you will find the following: Time Magazine.

Just last week I told you about the blatantly stupefying bias they showed in their editing of Bill Clinton’s comments on the killing of Osama bin Laden. Here was the original quote from Bill Clinton as it appeared in an ad for Barack Obama.

“Look, he knew what would happen.  Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden?  Suppose they’d been captured or killed?  The downside would have been horrible for him.”

Immediately that ad was criticized because Clinton mused about how horrible it would have been if the Navy SEALs had been killed … how horrible it would have been for OBAMA!

So recognizing that Dear Ruler had a mini-PR crisis on his hands, Time Magazine did what any ObamaMedia rag would do. Change the quote. In an article written by Jon Meacham in Time Magazine, the quote was printed as follows.

“Look, he knew what would happen.  Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden?  Suppose they’d been captured or killed?  The downside would have been horrible.” 

Horrible. Period. The controversial “for him” was conveniently missing.

That was last week. Now, the media isn’t even pretending anymore. Again, back to Time Magazine. Time magazine’s Mark Halperin appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe yesterday to discuss Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage. Halperin blatantly states the following about the media coverage of this issue.

“[T]he media is as divided on this issue as the Obama family. Which is to say not at all. And so he's never going to get negative coverage for this," Halperin argued. Sure, "The Republicans will say this is a flip-flop and it's wrong public policy. But when you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it's very hard to lose politically.”

Wow.