Politico.com has a crazy article about why the media's bias has swung so hard for Obama. I won't reprint a bunch of quotes because I've got so many stories to cover today, but I will say, not one word of the article addresses why the media hasn't covered entire years of Obama's life. They didn't expose it when the NYT wrote a puff piece on the Bill Ayers/Barack Obama connection, or the entirety of Obama's role in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bringing our country to it's financial knees. The media hasn't written a hit piece on Michelle Obama, like they did on Cindy McCain. Politico.com does admit this:
"The 2008 election has had some unique — and personal — phenomena.
One is McCain backlash. The Republican once was the best evidence of how little ideology matters. Even during his “maverick” days, McCain was a consistent social conservative, with views on abortion and other cultural issues that would have been odds with those of most reporters we know. Yet he won swooning coverage for a decade from reporters who liked his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics.
Now he is paying. McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout.
Since then the media often presumes bad faith on McCain’s part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states."
Isn't that wonderful? McCain was once "the best evidence of how little ideology matters". He once "won swooning coverage" for "clean politics" but, now - while Barack Obama is being busted by the Right-Wing blogosphere for everything from fraudulent campaign financing, ACORN, and even outright lying - it's John McCain who is the "unconscionable sellout" while Barack Obama is "change" from the old ways of politics.