I agree with all of this. But it's also necessary to keep in mind how profound the risk is. Because if (assuming Obama is the nominee) he's wrong in these assumptions, then you're looking at President John McCain for the next four years -- with all of the disasters that brings with it.

If that happens, then we deserve it. If the majority of the American Electorate gives in to the Drudgian Discourse in politics when someone tries to actually go beyond it, then it's a failure of our republic and our citizenry.

If this becomes the Swift-Boating of this election cycle, then it proves that we have learned nothing from these last few years except the fear we've been fed.

Even the press reactions to him echo the EXACT SAME THINGS that gave Bush a pass for so many years before some reporters thought 'gee, he's not looking too good, maybe it's ok to say something BAD about him now'.

Dismissing mistakes because he SEEMS genuine? SEEMS knowledgeable? Because he's affable in person? Has high school class clown charm?

What, did we suddenly go back to 2001-2002, where Bush could do no wrong? And McCain doesn't even have the benefit of the rallying effect 9/11 had for Bush.

Oh...and Cox? Alter? News for you: Socializing with people you're covering? It's all nice and well until it begins to color your reporting, and guess what? You guys have the tint turn WAY up and the remote's broken.

[And affable? McCain already has a reputation for an irascible temper... do they think that being in the WH is going to keep his temper on an even keel? Just consider how grumpy and testy-- if not downright obnoxious-- GWB has become over the last 8 years.]

You're forgetting one of the unwritten rules of political journalism in America:

If you're a Republican, it's passion. If you're a Democrat, it's anger.

Compare the 'Dean Scream' moment and McCain's....brusque behavior . Now which one is portrayed as 'angry' to the point that he's just so unsuitable for office?

All this is just an example of the cult of personality that the press has for Republicans it seems. They're afforded as much leeway as can possibly be afforded, and they're not expected to explain themselves much either. Because it's ACCEPTED that they have good experience. To paraphrase (a.k.a. steal a bit from) Colbert: "What's important is that most people BELIEVE that they have good ideas." The fact that they're horrible ideas and have proven themselves out to be horrible ideas doesnt' matter...as long as people believe they still have good ideas. How else do you explain why 'War Critics' Pollack and O'Hanlon are still relied upon rather than genuine critics, otherwise known as the 'PEOPLE WHO GOT IT RIGHT'?

I had an exchange with Cox after her appearance on Realiable Sources. She acknowledged the problem but went on to place the onus on me to get the full text and context (plus transcript) of an event and arrive at my own conclusions. I pointed out to her that she is a very recent comer to the MSM Consortium which cheerleads for McCain. In the end it became clear that she has taken the full measure of McCain Kool Aid. When covering him she engages in covering up.

This is one of the most disingenous things about the state of journalism as it is: The idea of 'balance'. State one side, state the other side, and say 'make up your mind for yourself'. It doesn't deal in FACTS. Cox, in saying what she did, does exactly what many criticize the media for doing: stenography.

While there's something to be said about encouraging people to get into the facts themselves, it's not as effective when you don't actually throw out some facts to begin with. If you start off by giving all sides represented equal credence, even if one side has the support of facts, it only benefits the side that's less credible.

And she doesn't even have the excuse of covering both sides either. She's reporting on one man here, and taking him at his word, while telling us 'you guys go ahead and look into the facts'. That's just pathetic journalism. When BS is BS, call it. Don't cover it up by saying 'well, it must have just been an innocent mistake, because we all know he's so knowledgable...but if you don't believe us, look into it yourselves, we'll be having BBQ'.

Bill Maher's comment on McCain being "dumb on the war" makes a good point:

'Experience' means nothing if it leads you to the absolutely WRONG conclusions on a consistent basis.

The only reason 'everyone' in America was for the war was because the Media said so. There were no voices against the war because they were effectively silence by lack of exposure, and the drum beat of 'inevitability'.

Sadly, the media seems to operate on an amazingly counterproductive wavelength when it comes to whose opinions on the war to trust:

The more wrong you were on the war, the more right you must be after the fact.

That's the only thing I can think of to explain why those who got it right and were ignored are STILL ignored.