'He's the only 1 we've got'; Obama at 8 months - AP article 7Sep09


"They seethe about the expansion of government. But they also shrug that the country got what it elected — a Democrat whose Senate voting record tilted to the left."

Obama's voting record didn't "tilt to the left." He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate as assessed by the National Journal.

Liz has no credibility and doesn't write well.

Apart from her flip-flopping, Sidoti has terrible style that wouldn't be enough to pass a decent high-school English test - in her latest. she writes "Even in the areas where he's made progress — stabilizing the financial sector, for example — people aren't feeling it, so they necessarily aren't giving him any credit."
Huh? "People aren't feeling it??" Yo, peeps, we ain't fillin' da big O! "They necessarily aren't giving him credit??" How's that adverbial placement treating this failure of a journalist?
In a nutshell, she's a joke, a ridiculous failure who should have stayed home baking cookies, provided she knows even that.

A recent article (link below), entitled "Analysis: Why do politicians cheat?" reveals that Liz Sidoti is guilty either of bias or sloppy writing. The "analysis" relates to infidelity by politicians. Read this sentence and see how long it takes to discovery Ms. Sidoti's bias:

"The names quickly come to mind — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Sen. David Vitter, R-La., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., one-time Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Gary Hart, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, current New York Gov. David Paterson."

REPUBLICANS ARE LISTED FIRST, AND THEY ARE IDENTIFIED BY PARTY. DO YOU NOTICE ANY "D's" BESIDE ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS? It is possible that Ms. Sidoti is only sloppy, not catching that her inherent bias against Republicans caused her to single the Republicans out first and by party. Assuming that Ms. Sidoti has an ordinary level of intellect, this conclusion is doubtful. You decide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_philandering_politici ans_analysis

This woman is one of the worst journalists in the US. Every story she writes is FULL of insinuation, speculation, personal opinion (bias), etc. She just wrote a story about Gov. Blagojevich's scandal, and how it MAY be linked to Obama, despite NO EVIDENCE indicating that to be the case, even according to the Prosecutor and to the tapes they're using to indict the governor. Even the headline was misleading and inaccurate. All she is capable of is writing yellow journalism, sensationalist pieces. Liz, go work for the National Enquirer - it's really all you have the talent for! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

I recently read an article by Liz Sidoti, about Barack Obama choosing his cabinet members. I was struck by the "rewording" -- if you will -- of the typical statement, "...spoke on the condition of anonymity...". In that particular article, she wrote that the persons provided the information "...on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his staff...". Now, I have just read another article by Liz with the same wordage! Why would "to avoid angering Obama and his staff" have to be added to her statement? The way I see it, she wants to put a negative spin on Obama. Period. She is definitely NOT unbiased!

Almorga - I'm not sure if you're Republican or Democrat. When I did a search of Liz Sidoti I found opinions on both sides of the aisle claiming bias from Sidoti for Republicans and Democrats. On first blush, online criticisms seemed pretty balanced in terms of their source, in other words both Dems and Reps hated. This would not be a positive indicator of bias. I general terms, one can state that if both sides hate you, you're not showing bias.

What your critique of Sidoti lacks is examples of bias. Your critique ends up being the very thing you accuse Sidoti of... an OPINION without supporting evidence. In fact, your review is so devoid of fact it's impossible to determine the exact nature of Sidoti's bias; does she have a Democrat or Republican bias? Further, pejorative statements like "picking better writers", is not a objective criticism on your part. It actually suggests hostility toward Sidoti, which may be clouding your judgement.

Please supply more evidence to support your claim, which will help others to better assess your claims of bias.

I will admit that I have not read every article Sidoti has ever written, but the synopsis of the articles I found in AP's archives does not suggest bias, but rather a reporting of current events.

Again, please give facts to support you assertions. For example, a Sidoti article AP release today, "Can Obama win popular vote but lose election?" suggests that there is not bias in favor of Obama, such that she is stating that whatever the polls may indicate, McCain can still pull out a victory. In terms of the content of her articles, most national polls and state polls demonstrate a sizable Obama lead. This seems unbiased, yet realistic.

Liz Sidoti's writing is extremelu biased and denegrating when it should be objective. She is clearly attempting to persuade people to agree with her ignorant and incomprehensive opinions. From now on, when I see her name in print in an article, I will discontinue using the primary source of information. The Associated Press better start picking better writers because Liz Sidoti is giving them a BAD reputation!!!! The word objective MEANS "without bias." I do NOT care who or what she likes. I am the consumer I DEMAND objective reporting. Tell Liz to keep her opinions to herself when she is at work. If she wants to support someone with as little experience as herself, then that is her stupidity. She is not doing her candidate any favors by attacking the opposition. She is only diminishing her chances of success and making herself look very unprofessional.