Over at The Brad Blog, Brad Jacobson claims the press hasn't adequately delved into the potential game-changing results from recent campaign surveys.
"You might think it would garner at least as much attention as, say, lipstick-on-a-pig palooza," he writes. We concur.
The NYTimes has a lengthy, detailed look at the negotiations that have gone on between the two sides in preparation for the upcoming debates.
But we thought it was strange that not once did the Times raise questions about why the first debate is being held on a Friday night. We're guessing there is no precedent for that, since Friday night, along with Saturday, is one of the two least-watched television nights of the week. And as Daily Howler notes, in September entire sections of the country are attending high school football games on Friday night. So why hold the first presidential debate, which is arguably the most important, on a Friday night?
For the Times, the issue is of no interest, which we think highlights the growing disconnect between the political press and the public.
Also, David Broder pens a whole pre-debate column today. The fact that it's being held on Friday is of no interest to him.
The mag offers up five solid ways to overhaul to outdated prez debate formats. We like No. 2 in particular: "Refuse to send any repoters to any candidate's "spin room" after the debate ends."
Key words and phrases about Joe Biden from the Times' distinctly unserious A1 piece on Saturday:
-"flailing his arms"
-"penchant for verbal rambling"
-"part of the national political furniture for decades"
-"His skin is perma-tanned"
NYTimes today has an item about how the Obama campaign sent out a fundraising plea that mentioned the week's financial crisis and how the GOP attacked that as being tacky. Or, "the definition of political opportunism."
But why didn't the Times mention, as reported yesterday at the Huffington Post, that the McCain camp this week has also sent out fundraising requests that mention the ongoing financial crisis?
Digby is not amused by Rush Limbaugh (!) accusing others of "trafficking in prejudice" in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. As she notes, "You can picture the smirk on his face as he wrote it."
Not directly related, but as media conservatives (pretend to?) discover the problem of sexism, it's worth remembering that not one of them seemed to mind when Limbaugh said women "actually wish" to be sexually harassed.
The Pulitzer Prizer-winner wonders why reporters don't ask McCain about his long-time legislative efforts to bury important information about Vietnam POW's. In his lengthy, well-researched investigation Schanberg notes:
John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.
The Christian Science Monitor takes a look, noting despite the truth-squadding Palin is still telling her BTN tale.