For this entry, I am primarily referring to the TImes article, unless I mention USLiberals. I did this for the contrast, again, personal reasons.
I chose to find a profile story on Hillary Clinton. I admit this was for purely personal reasons, as she is someone I have found complex, and in all honesty, don’t think I would like her as a person if I met her. Ah, but I found out more, and this article made her seem much more "human" to me- a nice thing!
What I liked was the profile piece made her seem likable- in spite of being called “fierce” and using words such as “bitter’ in describing both her and her political campaign in the last election. While these words seem to point towards subjectivity, the writer has done well using their comments to not seem subjective, but rather descriptive- yes, close bedfellows, but important difference.
The profile piece never describes her in a physical manner- which makes me wonder if it had been a male, would the same standards apply? I sense a bit of “over correction” in this tendency. This article did make me move into other articles, and that was nice- I learned more. Perhaps a benefit of online news?
The article in the Times did not discuss her marriage, as the first one did USLiberals. I think that is okay, as it did mention (and perhaps needlessly so) her as the “FIrst Lady” and the fact she traveled to more then 80 countries. Perhaps this was in support of her being chosen as Sec. Of State? Not sure.
I do not pick up any sort of opinion in the Times article, but do in the USLiberals article. I think that is because the USLiberals article was written for, well, US Liberals.
In both cases, I did come away with a nice understanding of Ms. Clinton, and while she still would not have gotten my vote (Obama is just...Obama), I do think meeting her would be great. She is really an outstanding woman- and one that perhaps we should point our young woman toward emulating- Brittny, move aside!