Impatient Americans?

The article I read on MSNBC's website describes Bill Clinton criticizing Romney supporters. Bill Clinton is stating that American's are "impatient." Clinton states that, "Gov. Romney acts like from the minute the president took his hand off the Bible he was responsible for every lost job." Critiquing this article, I see it very biased towards Barack Obama and  Bill Clinton. Not that it's obvious because the article is on MSNBC, but there is no balance. I feel that the article would be much better if there was a comment describing what Romney, Paul Ryan, or Bush...anyone really from the Republican side to say what they believe the Americans voting for Barack Obama are in their opinion. I understand why they wouldn't but the article could have brought up the "freeloaders" statement Romney had thrown around. I believe articles need to be balanced even when biased. I feel it gives educated readers a sense of what they're reading is factual and is GOOD. Good articles and stories should be able to tell something about both sides if not equally but enough for the reader to get a better grasp as to what side they like, or what they are reading. I would rate this article about a 5/10. I support Bill Clinton, I support Barack Obama. This Article was just a quick read and didn't give anything that would make an independent feel that they should look into or lean toward any of the two candidates. It's just an article wanting you to see a rough explanation on Bill Clinton's statements. The explanation is very poor in the sense sounding more of an assumption than a thought out response. I felt like I was just reading someone just say something that everyone already knows. I know that it helps Obama's case, but articles like these are not what Americans need to read. We need INFO not silly words.

stage 3!

U.S.A. today's editorial about the Libya and Egypt that the attacks deserve a careful and thought out response. U.S.A. Today's editorial points out that "generalizations don't apply," and "President Obama, who struck the appropriate, level-headed tone in his initial response to the attacks" The editorial staff I completely agree with in the sense that Obama did use the correct response. They state how our ambassador helped support Libya when Gadhafi was attacking them. They even describe Libyan's trying to help the ambassador during the attacks on the embassy. The U.S.A. Today's editorial staff seems very credible to the point that what they say makes lots of sense when looking at things outside the box. Obama doesn't want to generalize the protesters as terrorists etc. especially during an election year. Why should we generalize protesters as terrorists not everyone that day wanted someone today...well maybe not an ambassador but the point is also why do we need to attack people that most of them were protesting. I believe that area in the world does not like western influence and don't find it hard to enact violence towards an American embassy. The U.S. did beef up security in embassies so that outbreaks like the one that had happened don't happen again. I do believe an initial military response would be futile and unneeded. This issue of religion and movies is something the Libyan people need to figure out on their own. The U.S. needs to stand aside say sorry for our freedom of speech and move on. We can't be the savior of the world every day.