And boy, is McCain relieved.
Salon's War Room details the carnage from Papa Bear's sit-down with Obama. Specifically, the host's spin on taxes.
Ezra Klein explains the lunacy of horserace journalism -- and how it creates its own reality:
McCain "won" yesterday's day of campaigning because a poll conducted last week showed him in the lead and that led reporters at places like Politico to write about his advantage which in turn led The Politico to render the objective judgment that McCain won the day because they framed their coverage in a way that was favorable to him. During that same day, Sarah Palin showed she didn't know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked, which could have generated a lot of coverage and given Obama the day, but that's not what The Politico decided to emphasize.
Media Research Center's analyst on Rachel Maddow's new MSNBC gig:
Not only is the damage already done, the damage continues. I mean, not only are they keeping these people on for an hour a night, they're adding this lesbian Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow, on every night.
ProPublica compiled statements by McCain and Obama on executive power back in July, noting that the candidates "have rarely been pressed on the issue."
FDL offers a glimpse of the Palin interview:
Questions that will NOT be asked:
(1) Why are you refusing to testify in an investigation of abuse of power now when you promised to testify before?
(2) Why did you inquire into your ability to ban books when you were Mayor?
(3) What books did you want to ban?
(4) Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?
When Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race in June we thought one of the benefits would be that readers would be spared reading Patrick ("Cackle") Healy's tortured campaign reporting on Clinton. Alas, he's still hacking away. Today, Healy adopts the latest Beltway media critique that Clinton just isn't going after Sarah Palin hard enough on the campaign trail. (Did we miss something or is Clinton suddenly on the Dem ticket?)
The Times headline reads, "Clinton Stumps for Obama, but With Little Fire at Palin." But in the piece Healy concedes "The absence of heavy fire directed at Ms. Palin had been expected." So why is this news, other than the Times, and Healy, pushing a not-so-subtle Clinton dig?
Yglesias says narratives, not one-off factchecks, are what matters -- and that the media hasn't assigned negative narratives to McCain as readily as they have to Democrats. He's right.