While having heard Sam Zell say he was wanting Obama to be the Dem. candidate at his talk at the Hammer Museum, and also claim that he would never ever influence his news staff to follow his views, we readers then wonder why your article on page A1 & A19 is littered with negative words and phrases towards one lighter female senator and helping promote a positive comparison of a 1/2-dark-skinned male ?

Namely, be pro-obama and anti-clinton in practically all of your article.

Selected from your article, here are some adjectives & words used about Clinton:

"Angry Clinton Jabs...." [title of article]

"a newly bellicose tone "

"her more modest events"

"Clinton's rhetorical blasts"

"...could doom her candidacy" [hopeful predictions?]

"battered her campaign"

"Obama declined to match Clinton's anger"

"he said, "So I'm puzzled by the sudden change in tone" [really puzzled or critical?}

"something tactical about her getting so exercised...."

"her crowning as Democratic nominee" [as a monarch ?]

"traveling at a pace more typical for the final weeks"

[wrong pace ?]

"Her negative turn"

"discord among her advisors on a strategy to revive her candidacy" [things going bad for her for sure ?]

"her latest shift"

"It's very hard to deliver a message....Clinton recovery is very low"

"Clinton has tried to sully...."

"but failed to avert a lopsided defeat"

"took an implicit poke at Obama"

"her body language...suggested that she was losing hope" [by whose professional interpretation ?]

"told Clinton that he 'saw some of the fight leave your body' " [and expert's opinion or just another personal perception ?]

and yet in describing YOUR MAN, there were very different slants and words and descriptions:

"But he keeps his even keel -- and edge"

"Obama's speaking skills and his power to draw"

"His mailings were accurate..."

"it made me think that there's something tactical about her getting so exercised "

Obama looked pas Clinton..."

"Obama's string of victories'

""he was introduced as 'the one man with theintegrity of President Kennedy...the morals of Dr. Martin Luther King, the virtues of Cesar Chavez"

"his leard in delegates"

"Obama jabbed back....5,000 braved the cold tohear him speak. But he did not approach his rival in volume or intensity..."

The article had nothing negative to report about Obama and there were no indications that the quoted opinions were anything more than selected [carefully?] words and phrases that would produce a negative image of that female candidate daring to run against your preferred male one. Not one little critical negative

statement other than her comments of him.

The body language read by someone who is given authority to state what perhaps others may question or read very differently is a serious problem with your presentation.

The impressions of her body losing something sounds rather sexist and more gender specific,

and the prior facts of her stating support or not of NAFTA were not corroborated in your article, or researched either ? This was not specifically stated, but the accusation of Clinton now is seen as the negatively-stated & viewed "champion" of NAFTA [a view that may be different now than when it first was presented & passed, as hindsight is very helpful in creating clearer opinions].

The assumption of her 'losing hope' is predicting failure, perhaps to help insure it ?

The photo captions emphasizing Obama's beafic peaceful "declined to match Clinton's anger" and his being innocently "puzzled by the change in tone" as if he had no part in any provocation or politically targeted mailings makes Obama

sound like a poor victim and Clinton the uncontrolled aggressor.

Some of us are not so sure this is the whole picture or a very slanted and carefully crafted one of words and sentences structured to make one look like the bad woman and the opposite one a good man.

How unfair !! How cleverly prejudiced w/o stating so openly. How unfortunate that the LA TIMES has sunk so low as to follow the boss's selections and get points for doing his bidding...or being on staff for being his agreeable 'reporters'.

Most of us thought real reporters did diligence to give a full and fair picture of the whole story and not be like those other obvious promoters and lobbyists that chose their self-serving goals and lie to the general USA population. Maybe we dont have such real reporters any more, and that's why you still have your jobs.

Some of notice how the political games are played and why the winners end up screwing all the rest of us. You are helping that process. May you rest in peace, for rewards are few to those who play malicious selfish games, even in for-the-public-good newspapers.

Of course, Sam Zell responded to a Question asked that his main concerns were always the cost-benefits, meaning the money gains or losses, even of the only substantial LA newspaper. Too bad. And not surprising.