For or Against?

Much has been made of Sen. Harry Reid's apparent support for Bush's proposed "surge" in troop levels in Iraq while everyone knows that Sen. Hillary Clinton is opposed. Kagro X at the DailyKos explains that these two positions are not very different... except in how they were reported. Truly, one must learn to be a discerning reader if one is to get anything of value from MSM reporting.

If you're having trouble understanding why I could take exception with a statement by Senator Reid that would, in a normal world, be perfectly sensible (even if unnecessary), consider this:

Harry Reid says he'd only support a short term surge if "it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year."

Hillary Clinton says she'd only support a temporary surge if, "it was part of a broader long-term plan to stabilize the region."

Right?

So now, go Google "Reid," "surge" and the name of the AP writer who wrote the wire story on Reid's statement, "Hope Yen."

Look at the headlines. Almost all read as something along the lines of:

Brief troop surge OK in Iraq, Reid says.

Then, go to Google news and search "Clinton," "surge," and the name of the AP writer who covered Clinton's remarks, "Beth Fouhy."

Compare.

Almost all say:

Sen. Clinton opposes troop surge in Iraq.

Now consider what your neighbors, almost no matter where they live, are gleaning from the papers, and ask yourself which Senator -- given that sending additional troops to Iraq is polling at an abysmal 11% approval -- got the better of this?