I am saying nah nah nah nah nah!

This is another in the really well-done videos from the McCain camp.  And this particular one is going to my journalism prof friends, in hope that they may show future journalists how foolish they can look.

I had the impression this over the top coverage is part of what let to Obama's less than strong finish.

Ugh.

Martha Raddatz was the only one who said that with the coverage comes a responsibility to ask the tough questions - that if all the networks were going after was the optics, they would be failing to do their job.

Now, I see where Brokaw is giving Obama the entire hour of MTP on Sunday.  Obama was all over Nightline last night.  How many magazine covers has Obama had since the beginning of the year?

I think Obama is running a real risk with this saturation coverage, mainly because even after all of it, I'm not sure people will know where he stands or what he believes any better than they did in February.  And what they may start thinking is what I have already heard from a few people: who the heck does he think he is?  

And people remember that Bush was the last Media Darling who got shoved down our throats - that's turned out so well, hasn't it?

I've not watched CNN after 4PM for nearly 3 weeks -- and counting.

I'm going to give myself treats after the first month, and every month thereafter.

It's a montage of clips taken from the media for the past 6 months without any sort of context.

Wow, Steve Doocy thinks there is a liberal media bias. And so does Tucker Carlson!  My God!  Who's next?  Bill O'Reilly?  When will it end?

Now, just because it appears to be benefitting a dem, it's all OK.  Whatever, as long as it helps us win.  The end justifies the means.

It's the same as the rationalizations for Obama's Flip/Flops by those who were supposed to care about issues.  It's now OK because it will help us win.

Other tidbits from the poll:

Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
    --  --  --
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

Obama doesn't perform well when he's not in front of an adoring crowd or a gaggle of Yes Men.  Once he faces criticism or tough questions, he becomes defensive and doesn't quite know how to respond without sounding angry and condescending.

McCain knows this and, with this move, is attempting to introduce THAT Obama to the American People.  Take some of the shine off this recent good press as well as beginning a narrative into the Debates that Barack doesn't do well under pressure so, therefore, voters cannot trust him to handle the Top Job.

If voters recognize a pattern develop (of Barack not handling tough questions or criticism well), it plays into his inexperience and John McCain's (alleged) strength under pressure.

Obama is now once again in a long cycle of good, adoring press.

Yet Obama has a lead of only 3-4%.

A critical look may come for Obama (.... BTD says it won't until after the election.) or MSNBC will continue to be to Obama what Fox is to Bush.  

I've never understood why people look at the rock star quality as a negative.  It's his strongest asset.

Do you really want to be defending that statement?

I don't think that "rock star quality" equals charisma. Clinton had charisma, as did Kennedy, but it wasn't the over the top mindless adulation that equals "rock star quality" in my perception of things. And in no way was charisma the "strongest asset" of either one of them.

Hard to know what to say to that.

Well, that's not quite true.