1. The Change Thing: In PEI, as recently as the last election of 2007, the 11 year Tory regime was turfed for the Ghiz-led Liberals whose campaign slogan was "Islanders First...For A Change" which was an echo of the previous Ghiz premier's slogan in 1986 "Time for a Change". These slogans tapped into a public mood that a change in government was due and that the Liberals somehow represented such change. Of course, the nature of the change, the reasons requiring change and the possible outcomes of the change were never clearly defined. Merely presenting oneself as the change is sufficient for electoral gains in PEI politics at least whether or not actual change occurs. In other words: new faces, same old boys club. I don't know American politics well enough to comprehend whether Obama represents real change (although this is clearly what is being protrayed) or just a new face.

2. The Media and Obama: Right wingers in both USA and Canada love to portray the news media as a bunch of elitists or hippies whose interests are out of touch with the "real" folks who have to work for a living and don't get to sit on their soft asses in some office in New York or Toronto (or even worse Boston or Montreal) spouting their opinions. This assists the right wingers in asserting that (a) you can't trust the media and (b) your interests can never be the same as the media because you have to work for a living and you don't drink latte, do you? This, then, means that everytime the media likes something you, John Q. Workingstiff must react against that. Hence Harper's feud with the Ottawa press corps, hence Rush Limbaugh, etc.. In the case of Obama, though, he may have already connected with enough citizens who aren't in the sway of right wing pundits and bloggers and radio hosts that the "media darling" tag can't stick and may even result in backlash.

I was quite surprised to hear this called negative advertising given its banality. Essentially it is a charge that Obama is an attractive figure in the public eye as the other traits of Hilton and Spears, including their legal difficulties, simply do not apply.

The funniest thing about the claims by the right of media manipulation is that is it coming from the right wing media like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who are so blatantly biased and partisan.

I for one don't really know what Obama's opinions or stances are on all issues nor doI know of Mr. McCain's, but I will agree that no matter what BO comes up with, it will be painted as empty headed elitist, populist nonsense by the right wingers.

Given all that IMHO, he is a bit of a Paris Hilton because after years of having the prez they does, the more intelligent of the US folk want to appear to be ready for "change" from being viewed as heavy handed bozos. An intelligent, well spoken, healthy looking, young man who happens to be black yet talks whiter than Bill Cosby ever did appeals to the latte set and the inner city people who want a voice for a change.

All of THAT being said, he's somewhere between Adult Contemparary Top 40 Radio whereas McCain is Golden Oldies, happy friendly post war tunes radio. I don't listen to either station.

Obama is my new Paris Hilton!

http://www.cafepress.com/obama_p_hilton

Change means whatever the beholder wants it to mean. Which is why it's so great as a slogan. (Especially "change we can believe in".)

Is Obama really the next Paris Hilton? No. On the other hand, there's enough of a "famous for being famous" tinge to the guy that lots of people are talking about that ad, and there's a decent shot at having some of it stick. (Which is, I suppose, media manipulation by the McCain campaign -- they made sure that it was something the cable channels would run with, and so most of the country would be able to see it without them paying a dime.)

In that Obama is portrayed as something special when he's not? Yes. Paris Hilton is not sexy. She's famous for being famous and for having 'the right people' be her friends.

Obama is your avg democrat. There's not much daylight between him and say Teddy Kennedy. They aren't clones, to be sure, but there's not much difference between what Obama is running on and the last three Democrat candidates(Gore, Kerry, and B Clinton). Yet, he's been portrayed as something new. A breath of fresh air. In 1991 Clinton ran on a very similar strategy: the outsider, bringing change, going to enact all this populist, slightly socialist(but for good reason!) stuff, but he had a charm to him. Gore ran on much the same issues, sans the charm. Kerry was the same as Gore. Yet, according to Excellence in Journalism at Columbia Obama is getting 5-1 positive TV coverage to McCain for what, being charming?

American conservatives make to much of it, but thou dost protesteth to mucheth, mon ami.

He isn't that different than what ran before on substance. Charm is not substance. He gets way more coverage than his rival. What is one supposed to make of that then, Al? Or does waving one's hand and saying 'These are not the droids you're looking for' suffice somehow?

I could say it is a problem of the news media(which is different than the stuff like Access Hollywood shows, or is supposed to be) for becoming infotainment instead of, you know, actual news. Or maybe not. The Beatles were talked about ad nauseum simply for being famous too back in the sixties. So maybe news has always been so superficial and silly? But, one does not deserve prolonged 5-1 positive coverage over being popular. That makes no sense.

So what is the reason then if the conservatives have done a black helicopter job vis Obama and his advantage in popularity?

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I understand Obama is, to use a bluntly racial term, black. Some of the 5-1 media coverage might be accounted for by considering that he would be the first black POTUS ever. I think this would also factor into the idea that he represents a change. Apparently, he also gives a helluva speech.

There's been at least 3 black presidential candidates since 1984: Jackson(twice, 84 and 88), Sharpton(04), and Keyes(when hasn't Alan Keyes thrown his hat in the ring since 96?). So black is not novel and ergo not worthy of 5-1 differential, which none of those previous candidates recieved. It isn't race, it's Obama.

The press differential goes back further than the clinching of the dem nomination. So it isn't race or gender since he was beating up on Clinton with a sizable differential as well. It's Obama.

So, we're left with public speaking? That's it? Public speaking merits 5-1 press advantage? Wow. So why didn't Reagan get that since he kicked the crap out of all his opposition in skill?

No, I think it's Obama and none of the superficial stuff you cited, Hans(and I've only changed my handle. I'm still the same guy who comes over from John Donovan's site that used a two letter handle in the past. No need for noobs hazing.).

I think you're a little shallow there, Hans. Being in the tank for Obama is fine, I think the guys's going to win. That's not much of a big deal. He'd likely win even if the Fiarness Doctrine was in place. But, whether or not a candidate can get a fair shake by the network news is a decent question that deserves something more than the 'liberals rule conservatives drool' level response.

CBT: nothing personal but drop the hand puppet. There is an ancient rule here that you use your own name. Don't care about rules elsewhere.

Unless that is you. If it's you then it's fine. I'll just call you "you" and curse that I can't taunt your Angels. And if it is you...what is wrong with being called "Mr. X"?

Hey, you: I'm bored, so thanks for engaging....If I accept your vague and fragile dismissal's of why Obama is getting a 5-1 press advantage then we are left with your last assertions that its not all that "superficial" stuff like race and communication skills but "Its Obama". Well, what is it about Obama? You seem to be hinting that he is indeed the media darling that the McCain bunch is portraying. But then why is he a media darling? I think its too facile (if not downright sneaky) to say that the media are loonie left and Obama is a socialist and they all want to force us to drive volvos and that's why he's a media darling. It helps that Oprah is in his corner but his charisma and his race are also 2 big factors. Incidentally, I think McCain represents change just as much as Obama does and I would be equally happy if either of them won.

I think the proper usage is "It's Obama!!!"

Interesting to me is the fact that he has reported his own "charisma" is based on his grasp of his Chicago political strategies as much as anything.

AL, I got in trouble for blogging, big time. Seriously. Had my name taken off of a paper or three over fears that the places I was writing for and hanging out were overly political, and that such partisanship would hurt the response to the papers.

I have to drop all easily apparent connections to blogging. i can't do this publicly anymore. So, eventually I'll have to change my email addy to a nonsense thing too.

I can't blog at John's anymore either---and he was mad about that. I'm changing this everywhere I hang out too. Not just here. I've changed my thing over there too, and I can't write for him at all. I can't scrub my personality out well enough to get away with it.

It's not a sockpuppet thing. I just can't be openly me online anymore(isn't a sock puppet someone who pretends to add numbers of contra position artificially?). So, now that you know(I left the email addy so you could check if you wanted too), i can change the email thing to nonsense so it'll be harder to figure out who I am if anyone decides to google me or similar.

It cost me professionaly, so no more. CBT it is.

Hans. SImply put, I don't quite understand why Obama is such a media darling. That major network news rooms lean left is well known. that is different than being in the tank for a candidate though. I don't understand why Obama is the 6th(or is it the 7th?) Beetle. It's like trying to understand why Lorenzo Lamas has no film career but Keanu Reeves does(both pretty boys who largely can't act). Or why Kosovo became a media darling forcing the US to act, but Rawanda and few others didn't. For some reason the MSM got behind Kosovo and not the others.
There's possible explanations.

Given the insularity of professions(not just the MSM) it *is* possible that it is the same thing as Kosovo(someone in one's circle talks about it you do a story on it, but because someone in one's circle had not been on a trip to the bad parts of Africa no story is done). This would be the problem of no overt act, but unintended consequences.

Think of news as a business, and since he is, imexplicably, popular it sells more ad time to talk about Obama.

Which brings up the question of if the networks and papers are the major sources of news(the makers and breakers of opinion) is it right to have 5-1 coverage if that effectively throws the election one way or another?

Personally, I'd rather they self-regulate then require gov't to do something about it.

Another is the 'Noise Machine'. Has anyone looked at Memeorandom lately? Look at the tilt of the coverage, which stories tend to make it, and the preponderance of certain types of blogs. Or even the google shut down on certain blogs a few months ago by a hardcore group of activists gaming the system. If you make enough noise people will report it. It could be that simply some people are deluging news agencies with tips in favor of Obama. IT's a smart strategy.

But it also bring up the earlier point: who watches the watchers? A leftist often makes the same case about Judith Miller during the run up to Iraq. Where's the responsibility in journalism to not be played as a tool to do someone's informational warfare for them?

Ultimately, yes, I think it'll be Obama. I don't much like it. It isn't the end of the world. I don't like that he's getting 5-1 coverage, and I think that says something is seriously broken in how journalism is done---without getting into the 'they're all leftards bent on making us into France' bs.

Oh, and on a ot thing: I do recommend the Devo version of 'Head like a hole'. Wierd. I almost like it more than the original. Sorta like Prince's 'Grind' being redone by the Foo Fighters.

Wow. Well. we will give you sanctuary. Do you want me to backdate any scrubbing? I will start with this thread in the comments by anonymizing but have a look and email me if you want any similar treatments.

CBT, don't you honestly think 80% of the Obama love is a desire to be done with the Bush years. Sure partisans will say he is a great president but not too many actually think that, right?

Well, scrubbing is nice, but, dude, that's a lot of work. ARmorer wouldn't go for it so I can't ask you either. Wouldn't be fair. Don't waste your time. Damage is done, I just can't do anymore.

Obama as 'anybody but Bush'? I don't know. Maybe for some. I don't think you can attribute *all* of that 5-1 to ABB though. If so, then you've still got a problem with newmen buying a political operations line and using it as fact(McCain is just another Bush admin.).

It's a thorny problem. I think the best way to deal with it is not bog down in figuring out why Obama is so popular as to get the newsmen to realize the effect of such lopsided coverage does to the election itself. 1:1 may be too much to ask for, and they do need some leeway, so as to cover something tremendous that happens without being constrained by some weird equality concern, but 60-40 baring something like getting a Nobel prize, having a love child, or lifting a car of a kid shouldn't be too bad.

Now, back to the ad itself. Haven't seen it. But, the idea of it I think is brilliant. Turn one of the guys assets on it's head? Brilliant. It's of the same class as saying someone who's been in Washington for decades, and ergo has 'experience', is exactly part of the problem. Political aikido. Fun stuff.

And, dude, I still worry about the RS. The Angels starting pitching is statistically better, but as we saw last post season the RS have that extra little bit of potential. Particularly with the Marlin's guy on the hill. Scary when he's really on. And now that you're not a plodding team? Aiyah. I'm praying for half a dozen hamstring pulls. Seriously.

I think there is a difference between ABB and McCain is Bush. There can be simple punishment of the party regardless of the new offering.

As for the Sox, I think Jason Bay is going to turn into a Hall of Famer. I am the last Canadian homer when it comes to these things but I think the guy is exactly the remedy for the Manny era. Comfort for the lost skill and comfort for the lost headaches.