Politirazzi

By Jeff

What should McCain do to start getting more positive press? Well, for starters he could talk about himself more than he talks about Obama. There’s no question that Obama is getting more press than McCain, but even McCain’s own site talks about Obama more than it talks about McCain. The Boston Globe’s wordpile shows a pretty good picture that McCain’s strategy has been largely anti-Obama rather than pro-McCain.

His media advertising strategy is all about Obama as well; and it’s a weird one. The visuals are at odds with the content — where if you watch the ad with the sound off, it looks like an Obama ad showing how people love him all of the world because he’s got such an engaging personality and demeanor. How is that supposed to dissuade a potential voter?

McCain may not be getting much press, but the press that Obama has been getting is largely negative. The major stories the last couple weeks have been issues that have hurt Obama. Whether it’s the weird Obama advertising strategy or those major stories or a combination of both, it looks like it’s working as the national polls have shown.

(Photo: AP)

(continued)

By Emily

Now that it's all out in the open (although NYC media will continue to pursue "baby daddy" details), the new question about the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair has become: How was the mainstream media supposed to treat it?

Were we right to sidestep it? Were we too liberal to out Edwards? Is the National Enquirer too trashy to be a trusted in the least? Is it just plain none of anyone's business? Will Edwards' admission draw attention to how John and Cindy McCain met?

Here's a great analysis by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz.

Now, when is it time to talk about actual campaign issues?

By Lynne

The Associated Press has Obama with a slim national lead over McCain. Who cares?

Now, I don’t mean the kind of who-cares-yawn-o-rama-Obama fatigue that is affecting 48 percent of voters (and 51 percent of Independents); I mean, who cares because — duh — did we not learn a single thing about the Electoral College after the 2000 election?

It’s not completely clear which state polls their data comes from, but at least the folks over at democraticSPACE seem to get the fact that the outcome of the presidential election is based on the actual result in each state, since that is what determines how many Electoral College votes that presidential candidates receive.

So they look to state polls, not national polls. Makes sense, right?

In their match up, Obama is kicking the wrinkly, white-haired guy’s butt with 332 Electoral College votes to 216 (the magic threshold is 270). They have Ohio, Michigan and Virginia going to Obama with North Carolina, Florida and Missouri going to McCain.

But a recent Quinnipiac University poll says that Florida and Ohio are “too close to call” even though, just last month, Obama was ahead in Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).

(continued)

Australian street names representing the future and the past, via Jeff

By Jeff

Republicans are wringing their hands at how the press has been fawning over Barack Obama. He can do no wrong. John McCain even had a recent clever campaign ad about how effusive the press has been even quoting NBC’s Lee Cowan saying that “It’s almost hard to remain objective, because it’s infectious.” I’ve been taught that right and proper explanations to questions are most impactful when they are broken into three categories, but I’m going to give a bonus forth as to why Barack Obama has been getting so much more press over the last few months than are typical of Presidential candidates.

Barack Obama is doing and saying things that are uncommon for Presidential candidates. He’s given a huge speech about race relations in America that wasn’t really a campaign speech, but just an overreaching aspirational speech about America similar to Reagan’s famous “Shining City Upon A Hill” speech. When a candidate presents himself or herself in a manner which is drastically different than what has been done in the past, it’s obviously going to get coverage. Typical Presidential candidates don’t get 70,000 people (http://www.amny.com/news/politics/am-obama0519-gallery,0,2451493.photogallery) to show up at a speech in Oregon. A trip through Europe for a Presidential candidate is incredibly groundbreaking. Obama is deserving of the extra coverage he is getting since his candidacy is meaningfully different than those before him. Now, all of that extra press need not be the glowing sycophancy it has been, but his actions deserve being covered.

The press isn’t trying to be impartial; they are trying to get ratings. And the American populace, in large, loathes President Bush, and in turn anyone who is aligned with President Bush. The press is going to put on what people will watch, and anything that plays up Barack Obama and demonizes George Bush plays in Peoria. All these fawning puff pieces focusing on Obama’s superficial and non-specific speeches about “hope” and “change” end up portraying the Bush years in contrast as hopeless darkness from which Obama can rescue us.

(continued)

Slate comes up with their own list of rumors in response to the Obama campaign's Fight the Smears site, except these are funny.

— Adrian

(AP)

By Meg

I should be happy. Back in November, when I decided to cast my lot for Obama, I remember exactly what I said next: “If he’s still on the ballot in February.” Now he’s all but locked up the nomination. And his opponent ain’t too shabby, either! At the very least, I’m pretty sure that McCain won’t be any worse than Bush (it’s a low bar, but I’ll take it). I should be thrilled.

So why am I so unhappy? Let’s start with how the media, less concerned with journalism than ratings, continues to lament that this primary is cataclysmic for the Democrats and traumatic for voters. How, oh, how will the Dems ever come together after all of this intelligent debate on important issues? How can they possibly heal from these months of free publicity?? My mother talks about how sick she is of this election in the same tone she uses to describe how sick she is of Rachael Ray’s inexplicable overexposure. She’s not the first person I’ve heard make similar comments in similar tones (about the election and about Rachael Ray). It seems to me that we’re following this election the same way we follow American Idol: Here are a few contestants — let’s race ‘em! It’s entertainment! Except that it’s not. Entertaining, certainly, but not entertainment.

There are other things that have contributed to this Jacobean moodiness of mine.

(continued)

By Jeff

Of course race, sex and age are more discussed in this election season than they have in the past; there’s a black, a woman and a 71-year old running for president. I will admit that as a straight white male, I really haven’t been exposed to prejudice in my life. I realize there are prejudiced people, and while I haven’t experienced bias, I haven’t witnessed much either. And when I have witnessed it, it has immediately been stamped out by everyone around. Racists and sexists are becoming more of a minority in this country every day. The real reason race, sex and age have been so prevalent in this campaign are because of laziness and pandering.

When Sen. Clinton’s camp talks (or plants in the press) of sexism or the “glass ceiling” in an effort to explain why she’s fallen behind Obama, it strikes me as a cheap political ploy to either energize her supporters or to try and pander to current Obama supporters. Maybe the Clinton campaign can convert some Obama supporters by appealing to their liberal guilt and questioning their sexism.

(continued)