Team Obama

Has the media fallen for the Democratic candidate?

Steve Chapman | July 28, 2008

I came into the office the other day, wearing an "Obama 2008" cap, a "Yes We Can" button, a "Team Obama" T-shirt, carrying an "Obama for Change" tote bag filled with Obama bumper stickers, made a stop at the Obama altar in the newsroom, strewed some rose petals, chanted a few hosannas, lit a votive candle and had a sudden thought: Is the news media's love affair with Barack Obama getting out of hand?

John McCain and his campaign staffers have a sneaking suspicion it is. They put out a video with footage of journalists acting gooey about the Democratic candidate, to the strains of "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You." According to the campaign, "The media is in love with Barack Obama." McCain's people say that like it's a bad thing.

If there are some journalists who are taken with Obama, it's not surprising. One of the unfortunate things about the American press corps is that it is made up of people. Many people in other walks of life have been attracted to Obama, moved to vote for Obama, even enthralled by Obama. So you would expect some people wearing press badges to be susceptible to the same kind of reactions.

John McCain didn't always mind this tendency. In 2000, the crushes were all on him. Newsweek gushed about his courage, his candor, his "puckish charm" and his life story—a saga "so overpowering and, at times, excruciating, that it has needed a fresh kind of human interaction to show that the hero isn't made of marble."

U.S. News and World Report said he "seems too good to be true," "a man of consistency, character and a few rough edges in a world of contradiction, lies and conformity." Cue the Four Seasons!

So, yes, reporters and commentators can sometimes be taken with a presidential candidate. Politicians who make serious runs for president usually have more than the average quota of charm and magnetism. Journalists, like McCain, are not made of marble, so they are not immune to those qualities.

Chris Matthews said of one Obama speech, "I felt this thrill going up my leg," which invited ridicule. But his mistake was an excess of honesty. Obama is by anyone's standard a powerful orator, and powerful orators are good at eliciting emotions. Being affected by a speech, however, is not the same thing as worshipping the speechgiver.

I'm probably not the only journalist in America who shed tears when Ronald Reagan spoke at Omaha Beach on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. I felt a few chills when New York Gov. Mario Cuomo delivered the keynote address at the 1984 Democratic national convention—which didn't stop me from blasting his message.

You may assume Matthews is a shameless liberal. But the same Matthews was dazzled by the "star power" and masculinity of Republican Fred Thompson, fantasizing about the smell of "English Leather on this guy."

There are some journalists who openly favor Obama. There are also some who openly favor McCain. That's fine, because they are commentators, who are supposed to take sides.

But McCain supporters tend to discount the conservative commentators while assuming that the liberals speak for all journalists. They also assume that reporters, who are supposed to be objective, would rather help their favorite candidate win than do their jobs in a professional way.

Is that plausible? Not really. In 2004, journalists voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry over George W. Bush. Kerry got plenty of unflattering news coverage anyway. I'd bet that in 2000, most media people voted for Al Gore, who thought he got a raw deal from the press.

Obama is getting more congenial coverage, but not because he's ideologically compatible with most scribes. The real reasons are that he vanquished the formidable Hillary Clinton, his race gives him huge historical significance, and he has exceptional political talents that even his critics acknowledge.

But those attributes will grow stale. Obama will make mistakes. His flaws will become more noticeable. Presidential campaigns are like baseball seasons: Today's hero is tomorrow's goat.

With three months to go, there will be plenty of chances for McCain to shine and Obama to stumble—and the news coverage will shift accordingly. By Election Day, Obama may feel like he's been worked over by the Hells Angels.

Who knows? That newsroom altar might even start gathering dust.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Comments

|7.28.08 @ 7:57AM|#

Obama is the Deepak Chopra of politics. Of course the press loves him; they're not very big on critical thinking.

-jcr

M K|7.28.08 @ 8:07AM|#

If the McCain camp wants more swooning coverage, maybe their candidate should do something that generates excitement. His policies are Bush re-treads, and is delivery is more wooden than the podiums he speaks from.

ktc2|7.28.08 @ 8:48AM|#

What do you expect?

They can cover the first African-American to run a serious campaign for POTUS

or

some doddering old man who reminds most of us of that crazy senile uncle who falls asleep in his mashed potatoes at Thanksgiving

VM|7.28.08 @ 8:49AM|#

press not big on critical thinking - a big agreed. but that cuts all ways. The pro war crowd still has a seat with the grownups, partially as a result of said non-critically-thinking press. Reagan got lots of passes for his speaking skills, too. it is what it is. And it favors/disfavors pretty much all sides. To paint it as a team red/ team blue phenomenon shows the bias of the accuser.


(but then again, I've never believed in the "liberal media" as a monolith)

(or the press should have majored in liberal arts, grin)

MK - nice! As pointed out in the article, McCain did get swooning coverage in 2000, too!

ktc2|7.28.08 @ 8:50AM|#

Have you seen The Daily Show's campaign themes.

Obamaquest

vs.

McCain, The Quest for Attention

|7.28.08 @ 9:19AM|#

We'd be better off if journalists and media outlets were permitted by their culture to just be overtly partisan. All of this nonsense about objectivity is at best a farce and at worst an undue source of repression and stress for reporters and editors.

Who doesn't pick what news they consume based on its bias? Isn't this the way it's always been?

Frankly, I believe news is stale by the time there is enough information about an event to report on it objectively. At that stage it is the province of memoirists and historians. Of those two, only historians can be appropriately criticised for their bias.

|7.28.08 @ 9:26AM|#

I wouldn't worry too much about Obama's media hagiography. The shine is coming off of that halo at a rapid pace. Obama's going to be the "goat" by next month.

ktc2|7.28.08 @ 9:29AM|#

Yeah, but goat will still get more coverage than old goat. LOL.

classwarrior|7.28.08 @ 9:39AM|#

Please remember Steve, (since you write in English for a living), that the term "media" is plural.

|7.28.08 @ 9:55AM|#

Obama's going to be the "goat" by next month.

Oh, totally. Just ignore the 5-10 bump the tracking polls are showing.

He's going down, baby! That Reverend Wright thing is gonna kill him!

Barack H. Obama|7.28.08 @ 10:06AM|#

He roller-coaster, he got early warning
He got muddy water, he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking cos he's so hard to see

Come together,
Right now,
Over me.

|7.28.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Oh, totally. Just ignore the 5-10 bump the tracking polls are showing.

He's going down, baby! That Reverend Wright thing is gonna kill him!

joe, just hush. I'm not saying that because I'm some kind of LGF hack. Although your instant yet irrelevant defense tells me a lot about the man's cult.

My point was that folks are starting to wise up that Obama's a politician. One who speaks in lofty, hope-y platitudes, but the shine is definitely coming off.

|7.28.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Yes, dude, pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your thesis certainly is cult-like behavior. Most cults are big on that sort of thing.

My point is that your point is nonsense. There is no "halo," everybody already realizes he's a politician. He just happens to be a popular one, like Bubba in 1992 and Reagan in the early 80s. And rather than his popularity fading, it is in fact increasing, according to the evidence available in the object, non-faith-based, non-solipsistic world outside your skull.

Colin|7.28.08 @ 10:23AM|#

Beware -- the cult of personality will only become stronger when Dear Leader is attacked.

Colin|7.28.08 @ 10:26AM|#

If he's so popular, why can't he push past 50% percent in the polls?

Clinton never could, either -- but at least he could argue that he was running against two major candidates.

|7.28.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Please focus on more important issues, like making sure you have enough canned goods and bottled water to last at least 6 months. Batteries, gasoline (for generators - you have one, right?), ammunition, etc. When the economy collapses (no matter who is president), do not be unprepared.

|7.28.08 @ 10:33AM|#

And rather than his popularity fading, it is in fact increasing, according to the evidence available in the object, non-faith-based, non-solipsistic world outside your skull.

Immediate, in-the-moment polls are not a good indicator of the perception people will have of him in the future. Yes, joe, it's a prediction, but I'm making based on the subtle shifts I've been seeing in the write-ups of the man, not based on the Altar of the Polls you worship.

Ask yourself this, joe: why isn't the actual Convention a good enough place for Obama to make his acceptance speech? Answer: so we can all soak in grandeur of Obama while the throng basically wets itself for him at Invesco.

Brian|7.28.08 @ 10:40AM|#

Just because the dolt in office can't get out a sentence without making an ass out of himself doesn't mean a great orator is going to do great things. It's really pretty scary the media put that over substance, but not surprising. Fuckin morons.

ktc2|7.28.08 @ 10:40AM|#

"Ask yourself this, joe: why isn't the actual Convention a good enough place for Obama to make his acceptance speech? Answer: so we can all soak in grandeur of Obama while the throng basically wets itself for him at Invesco." - The Angry Optimist -

Whereas the only one wetting himself at McCain's acceptance speech will be McCain into his Depends.

|7.28.08 @ 10:42AM|#

I love the reasoning here:

There is a cult surrounding Obama, but it's failing.

No, it's not. Look at this evidence.

Sigh. See what I'm talking about. That's JUST how a cult acts.

|7.28.08 @ 10:47AM|#

If he's so popular, why can't he push past 50% percent in the polls?

Because it's July, and 15-20% of the electorate is still undecided.

Immediate, in-the-moment polls are not a good indicator of the perception people will have of him in the future. Yes, joe, it's a prediction Oh, ok. Most people use the future tense when making a prediction, so you'll have to excuse me if I didn't realize you were talking about the future.

I'm making based on the subtle shifts I've been seeing in the write-ups of the man, not based on the Altar of the Polls you worship. Hilarious! Basing your perception of the public's opinion on what somebody says the feel is ok, but basing that perception of scientific data collected through public opinion research is like an act of religious devotion. Sure, that makes sense.

Ask yourself this, joe: why isn't the actual Convention a good enough place for Obama to make his acceptance speech? Because contary to what your gut is telling you, in the actual world outside, Obama is popular enough to fill a football stadium.

|7.28.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Most people use the future tense when making a prediction, so you'll have to excuse me if I didn't realize you were talking about the future.

I said that the "shine is coming off"...I suppose that yes, that's a present-tense phrase that's stating a process I see coming.


Because contary to what your gut is telling you, in the actual world outside, Obama is popular enough to fill a football stadium.

yeah, that's it. The Pepsi Center just ain't big enough to hold the man's ego, is all.

look, joe, I don't particularly care who wins; I think both candidates suck. But if you're not willing to cop to the fact that there is an unthinking mass of support for the guy whose own website has him lecturing us from the clouds, I can't help you.

if all this "This is our moment...this is our time...the planet will begin to heal when you seize the moment and elect me" garbage doesn't set off your BS detectors, that would just confirm that you are, in fact, a hack.

|7.28.08 @ 10:59AM|#

It's really pretty scary the media put that over substance, but not surprising.

It's not surprising when you can see a glaring example of it right here on this thread.

Obama doubles back on FISA and telecom immunity? Nahh...
Both sides of his mouth on the gun issue? No way...just look at well he speaks!
The Surge? Never went against...except when he did.

Colin|7.28.08 @ 11:00AM|#

This time in 1976 Carter had a 33-point lead; Dukakis a 17-point one.

Even with this "bounce" you boasted of earlier, the RCP average of national polls has him up only 46.5 - 41.8, a spread of 4.7 -- with less than 12% undecided; or just as likely voting for either Barr or Nader.

|7.28.08 @ 11:10AM|#

TAO,

You need to stop arguing both that he is wildly popular and that he isn't popular. It doesn't make any sense.

You keep repeating last week's talking about Obama's outsized ego - you don't think John McCain, George Bush, or Bob Dole would give a speech to 200,000 people in Berlin or 70,000 in Denver, if they could draw the crowd? That's some delusion right there.

"This is our moment...this is our time...the planet will begin to heal when you seize the moment and elect me" garbage doesn't set off your BS detectors, that would just confirm that you are, in fact, a hack. It sets off my BS detectors exactly as much as the similar rally-to-me language of every presidential candidate. The pretense that Obama's appeals are substantively different from those of every other candidate (as opposed to merely being expressed more charismatically) also sets off my BS detector.

Colin,

The RCP national spread was up to 5 last night, and is still including polls from before Obama's overseas trip.

But still, he "should" be up 20. No, 40. NO, a ZILLION! Why isn't he up a zillion? This is BAD FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

|7.28.08 @ 11:13AM|#

Uh oh, Colin, see what happens? Better report to the Civilian National Service Center for proper indoctrination into the tenets of Hope and Change.

The pretense that Obama's appeals are substantively different from those of every other candidate (as opposed to merely being expressed more charismatically) also sets off my BS detector.

In other news, Hey, Look Over There! The tenor and words ARE different, joe, but you're too wedded to Team Blue to see it.

|7.28.08 @ 11:19AM|#

Yawn.

You can when someone's a cultist, because they use objective data to refute points that The Angry Optimist wants to believe.

My my, somebody's tummy hurts when people disagree with him, eh? Maybe if you keep typing words like "cult," you won't be objectively wrong on the facts.

The tenor and words ARE different, joe, but you're too wedded to Team Blue to see it.

Well, it's Morning Again in America, and I believe in a Place Called Hope. Is this the first presidential campaign you've been old enough to vote in?

Barack H. Obama|7.28.08 @ 11:30AM|#

You'll feel me coming
A new vibration
From afar you'll see me
I'm a sensation.
I'm a sensation.
I overwhelm as I approach you
Make your lungs hold breath inside!
Lovers break caresses for me
Love enhanced when I've gone by.
They worship me and all I touch
Hazy eyed they catch my glance,
Pleasant shudders shake their senses
My warm momentum throws their stance.
You'll feel me coming
A new vibration
From afar you'll see me
I'm a sensation.
Soon you'll see me can't you feel me
I'm coming...
Send your troubles dancing I know the answer
I'm coming...
I'm coming...
I'm a sensation.
You'll feel me coming
A new vibration
From afar you'll see me
I'm a sensation.
I'm a sensation.
I leave a trail of rooted people
Mesmerised by just the sight,
The few I touched now are disciples
Love as One I Am the Light...
I Am the Light!

|7.28.08 @ 11:32AM|#

"[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . ."

yeah, that sounds like just typical campaign rhetoric. Obama will Heal the Planet from the Clouds.

|7.28.08 @ 11:34AM|#

Sounds like Kennedy, except he's talking about the environment inistead of communism.

"Let the word go foath from this place..."

|7.28.08 @ 11:42AM|#

"[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . ."

Urm, except that sea levels began have been declining for two years . Still, give him credit, for taking credit, for something that's already happening without him. An essential political skill!

|7.28.08 @ 11:43AM|#

joe, are you suggesting 200,000 people in Berlin came to hear Obama talk? What's your "news" source for that?

Colin|7.28.08 @ 11:49AM|#

I seem to recall large groups of Germans congregating in Berlin to hear another politician.

|7.28.08 @ 11:54AM|#

bigbigslacker,

All of the news sites reported that number.

Here's one: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5442448&page=1

Colin,

I seem to remember pointless invocations of Hitler being generally frowned upon.

|7.28.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Joe,I consider someone a 'cultist' when they feel the need to defend their man over and over on the same thread.You use polls and feeling to 'prove' your point because you can't understand how other's don't see the light.I can't stand McCain , his disregard for the for the constitution for pet projects and his patriotism above all shows him to be a fool.Obama is a scold and nanny who will take care of us in a matter he deems best.Neither one understands their sticking their nose's where they don't belong.They both want control of our lives just not in the same manner.

|7.28.08 @ 12:07PM|#

I write no more comments on Obama threads than on any other threads in which a lot of people address me, Mr. Pack.

Go on, look at some of the non-Obama threads below.

People are simply labeling any statement that doesn't comport with their own opinion about Obama "cult-like."

You use polls and feeling to 'prove' your point because you can't understand how other's don't see the light. This is fucking hilarious! I "use polls" - you know, refer to objective date about public opinion to evaluate people's claims about public opinion - because, er, something about cults. Whatever.

This is like the WMD debate from 2005 - sure, you were right and we were wrong, but the fact that you were right demonstrates that there's something wrong with your thought process. The people who were thinking clearly, and not blinded by "Bush Derangement Syndrome," all got the question wrong. That's how you know they were thinking clearly.

How about this: when something I write, as opposed to what OTHER PEOPLE write, fails to comport with objectively reality, THEN we can start speculating about what went wrong in my thought process that caused me to so misunderstand what's going on. For now, if we're going to talk about who is letting their feelings interfere with their ability to understand what's actually going on, we focus our efforts on the people who, you know, demonstrate some evidence of being wrong about something?

|7.28.08 @ 12:15PM|#

People are simply labeling any statement that doesn't comport with their own opinion about Obama "cult-like."

No, they are not. We are labeling cult activity cult activity, y'know, when the man got a groaning semi-shudder from Crowd when he said that "this is the moment the oceans recede" or some such nonsense. What's his next trick for the masses? Water into wine? Feeding the five thousand?

This is like the WMD debate from 2005

I somehow doubt Mr. Pack had a dog in the no doubt exciting partisan battle raging in your head.

|7.28.08 @ 12:18PM|#

Yes, all report that number. Some suggest he DREW a crowd of 200,000, and others more accurately report he attended a free rock concert where 200,000 people happened to be congregating. Isn't it absurd on it face that 200,000 Germans would show up to listen to an American presidential candidate to be? Would you waste an afternoon to hear a foreign politician's meaningless rhetoric? ...Well, I wouldn't - I have more important things to do. Mainly yard work.

|7.28.08 @ 12:28PM|#

We are labeling cult activity cult activity, y'know, when the man got a groaning semi-shudder from Crowd when he said that "this is the moment the oceans recede" or some such nonsense.

Really? So, when you kept calling me "cult-like" - "It's not surprising when you can see a glaring example of it right here on this thread," - because I looked at polling data and refuted what you had to say about Obama and public opinion, that was actually a reference to his comment about global warming?

See, I totally didn't get that.

|7.28.08 @ 12:30PM|#

I somehow doubt Mr. Pack had a dog in the no doubt exciting partisan battle raging in your head.

You are not a very intelligent person, are you? You consistently fail to grasp even the most obvious points.

What does the word "like" in the phrase "This is like..." mean to you? How about the entire rest of that paragraph, where I talk about...you know what? Screw it. You're not going to get this, either.

|7.28.08 @ 12:35PM|#

Add "free concert" to your news search. Innocent omission/mistake in the reporting?

I once had a meeting with 10,000 people. Well, in all honesty, I took a flight out of O'hare.

hotsauce|7.28.08 @ 1:13PM|#

objective date[sic] about public opinion

Garbage in, garbage out.

Colin|7.28.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Anyone else notice when Joe's empty rhetoric gets pushed into a corner he starts with the ad hominem attacks?

A sure sign that his actual arguments are utterly benign and worthless.

|7.28.08 @ 1:42PM|#

Dammit - I am chagrined that 'Reason' has not mentioned the Knoxville church gunman and liberal killer - the new right-wing hero.

Sean Hannity has called him a "great American" while Fox News prepares his eulogy.

Its time to start packing in churches, guys. Those damned libruls are taking over!

|7.28.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Colin | July 28, 2008, 1:20pm | #

Anyone else notice when Joe's empty rhetoric gets pushed into a corner he starts with the ad hominem attacks?

A sure sign that his actual arguments are utterly benign and worthless.

And they say irony is dead!

You just wrote that you can tell my arguments are worthless, because of something that has nothing to do with my arguments, in a comment accusing me of launching an ad homenim attack.

I love it.

Hey, Colin, did you know that "ad homenim" isn't a synonymn for "personal insult," but actually has to include an argument that we know a person's statement is wrong because of that personal insult?

No, Colin. You don't.

|7.28.08 @ 2:04PM|#

bigbigslacker,

The fact that there was a band included in this event is supposed to mean what, exactly? That the people who hung around for an hour cheering wildly after the band stopped playing were not interested in the speech?

Clearly, it's a media conspiracy not to mention that Barack Obama has as warmup band.

|7.28.08 @ 2:20PM|#

http://hillaryclintonnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-draws-crowd-of-200000-with.html

Joe, they were still eating their free pizza and beer. Are you saying "Obama DREW a crowd of 200,000"? This is such a good example of bad "reporting", it should be held up as an example for yellow journalism students taking YJ101. How you could think otherwise is telling. I think you want him too win so badly its clouding your judgement. Maybe he is your Ron Paul?

And talk about "on topic".

Not the first time this has happened at a "Obama, superstar" event. I'm sure you know that though.

Just google "obama 200,000 berlin free concert", and read a few pajamas media stories on this and previous events.

Colin|7.28.08 @ 2:37PM|#

Joe, there you again, making up definitions of words to serve your purpose.

An ad hominem attack actually means replying to an argument by attacking the person making the argument.

When you call someone stupid instead of attacking of substance of their argument, you're making an ad hominem attack. Which you do consistently.

You do this because your thoughts and ideals (not you personally) are shallow, petty, and have been thoroughly discredited by history. They have no value whatsoever, so you're left with your miserable and childish attacks.

Mike M.|7.28.08 @ 2:40PM|#

One of the unfortunate things about the American press corps is that it is made up of people. Many people in other walks of life have been attracted to Obama, moved to vote for Obama, even enthralled by Obama. So you would expect some people wearing press badges to be susceptible to the same kind of reactions.

The difference is that amongst the American voting public, Obama is going to get around 50% of the vote, give or take four or five percent, and amongst the voting members of the major national press corps he's going to get around 85% of the vote, give or take four or five percent.

The "mainstream" media is one of the least representative groups of greater American society you can possibly find in the entire country.

|7.28.08 @ 3:00PM|#

The only problem with Chapman's example is that the media may give Republican's good press, but it's usually on that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning. McCain was never going to win in 2000. And Fred Thompson? It's harder to run for President than to audition for a role.

This will be an interesting campaign. Besides the obvious story lines (age, race), we'll get to see if the media puts their money where their mouth is. For years, they criticized Reagan for being a charismatic guy with no ideas. I haven't seen a lot of detail from the Obama camp. Let's see if he's treated the same way.

Still voting for Bob Barr anyway, so a lot of it is personally irrelevant.

Sean W. Malone|7.28.08 @ 3:14PM|#

I once had a meeting with 10,000 people. Well, in all honesty, I took a flight out of O'hare.

ZING!


Seriously though Joe... you don't notice the religious, cult-like overtones surrounding Obama? I mean... you keep citing "polls" and all as if they have any connection to reality (Fuck you Frank!) or are generally scientific. We all know this right? CNN's (or Fox's) online polls aren't an accurate portrayal of public opinion - they're just a way to fill some pages.

BTW:
One of these..
http://www.stickerrobot.com/obama/img/s01-art-shepard-fairey.gif
...is painted on a giant wall I drive by every day in LA on Fairfax avenue. Of course, I don't suppose you find this... http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/images/2008/02/10/obama_noland_poster.jpg ...particularly cultish either.

Noooo.... no Halo at all.

|7.28.08 @ 5:29PM|#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQT_5ynCcDk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OBVrnxyv3tI

Take all the fans in these two videos, add the many more that would come for free, throw in some free food, add Obama and then you have the headline "Obama draws crowd of 200,000". Anyone can believe what they want, but I'm calling bullshit on it. Not mentioning the other attraction in a "news" story is real real bad. I'd think professions would know better.

|7.28.08 @ 5:31PM|#

professionals two...

OK, this is getting unsportsmanlike. I'll quit.

Mephistefales|7.28.08 @ 9:45PM|#

Since I'm sure a fine Libertarian outlet, like Reason, would never censor reasonable comments, I'll repost the one that seems to have disappeared:

Does Reason actually pay people to write this kind of fluff? If so, I'm your Huckleberry! I will write fluff for your publication until the end of time, as long as the checks keep coming. Seriously, I'm one fluffy bastard! Just don't expect anything substantial from me. That's just asking too darned much.

Seriously, people -- this article was entertainment, not news.

Same ol' feel-good Obama pap.

Mephistefales|7.28.08 @ 10:06PM|#

Just to clarify: 1st part - serious (possibly operator error), 2nd part - sarcasm, 3rd part - serious.

Rounded Binary, for any connoisseurs out there.

economist|7.30.08 @ 2:28PM|#

"Chris Matthews...fantasized about the smell of English leather from Fred Thompson."
This brought a rather disturbing image.

LiveFreeDieFree|8.3.08 @ 9:54PM|#

This article is another deep put-on, isn't it, Steve?

|8.4.08 @ 2:58AM|#

I dunno, I'm getting sort of tired of the "Obama fanaticism is the same as the previous McCain crushes" story lines I keep seeing. Having watched both with a high level of contempt, I don't think that the press's crush on McCain was nearly as hot and sweaty as their full on Obama Chubster.

I mean, the press was never really hot and bothered for McCain, they were hot and bothered for McCain as an alternative to the usual kind of Republican (whom they detest even more). With Obama, the press has really started eying the petro-lubricant hard core. Any minute now they're going to dim the lights, cover the web-cam lens, and spend an hour of private time with the shades drawn an the Obama speeches pumped up.

Dan|8.8.08 @ 10:46AM|#

I think to the contrary of the article the media has done a huge service to Mccain by not giving him attention. Everything coming from him and his campaign is so pathetically stupid, sad, and scary that if he was given much more attention I think the national sentiment would be even more skewed toward Obama. By not reporting on the shear idiocy of the Republicans thus far they can keep the race looking competitive as long as possible and keep ratings up. It's too bad they don't report honestly on the situation and give some love to Bob Barr as the only actual conservative candidate running.