Ferraro: "First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate."

While the first thing seems to be an objective question, it seems like she's already leaning toward 'Clinton wuz robbed' and no longer asking about whether Obama might have had unfair treatment too, despite the first question wondering if either campaign was sexist/racist. And the third thing, she seems to already be assuming that many journalists were acting as mouthpieces for a campaign, and judging from the rest of her op-ed, it's obvious she's again playing victim here by insinuating 'all those journalists were in the tank for Obama!!' It's not exactly a fair approach to the kind of study she wants, and is likely to result in a biased conclusion.

I want to ask something that might or might not have been addressed already in previous comments.

I've seen a lot of people bring up Wright and Pfleger as far as Obama being disengenous about race, or playing the race card or what not. But after the minimal coverage the whole Hagee and Parsley thing got for McCain in comparison, not to mention the presence of divisive figures like Robertson and Falwell in past elections that never got the kind of coverage Wright did, I want to ask this:

If Obama was white....or heck, even if Obama wasn't white but Wright WAS, would the Wright issue have even been an issue? Would there have been the kind of handwringing we saw about him, or would we have seen him as just another Hagee or Falwell or Dobson or Robertson or Perkins?

There's a lot of knee jerk reaction coming here, from both sides, both at Clinton's non-concession and the idea being batted about to put her on as VP. That's kind of sad, as this should be the point where we should be moving toward focusing all our attention against McCain.

As far as the VP idea, again, a lot of knee jerk reaction and emotional and ugly outbursts, again from both sides. Still, there are substantial questions about the VP idea.

1) How many supporters will it bring under the campaign's wing?

The idea that Hillary bringing back some of her supporters to Obama's side is one of the main reasons I see. However, does Obama need Hillary to get back a lot of those supporters, many of whom are likely staunch Democrats and would likely balk at McCain either way? And for those who have adamantly opposed Obama to the point of saying their choosing McCain over him, would Hillary as VP help bring them back, or would VP be seen as a 'pittance' instead? I'm not so sure about the necessity of Hillary as VP as far as getting supporters back.

2) Negatives

The thing is, Hillary comes with a LOT of negatives. Obama has his too, as they've been exposed and beaten like a dead horse by the press. While there are net positives to a Obama/Clinton ticket, you have to take into account that there's a lot of negatives there too, and that's even without the need to manufacture new Swift Boat-esque 'negatives' out of thin air.

3) Negatives Pt. 2

Additionally, Hillary Clinton herself has gone negative as well. Accusations of her blatantly undermining Obama's candidacy and all that. The 'Commander-in-Chief' test, kicking at his 'experience' factor, not to mention things like her insistence of 'I'm winning the popular vote' 'I have more electoral votes', basically insisting that she's the real winner here. It'd be a bit of cognative dissonance for both her and Obama to be on the same ticket, headed by a man who she insisted wasn't as qualified to win in November as she.

4) States

A lot of hey was made about Hillary winning the 'swing states' and important base states necessary in November. However, question is not whether Obama could beat Hillary in those states. The question is whether Obama can beat MCCAIN in those states. Many of the states Hillary won in the primary are pretty locked Democratic states, and it'd be hard to see Obama losing those to McCain. So which states would Hillary put into play for Obama vs. McCain? And would that help or hurt chances in other states that Obama could play for otherwise?

I can understand the NPC saying that they don't want to deny anyone a platform....but one has to ask a question:

What merits does Larry Sinclair have to actually merit the platform on the National Press Club? Why lend him the credence? I have some grievances, but I doubt that the NPC would allow me a platform so I could rant about McCain.

Wright I understood why he was given his chance at the podium. Sinclair....why? Why?

I've seen many of the points I would have made put up already (how it was ineffectual satire, how the lack of context makes it too easy to assume that it's the Obamas being satirized, not the attacks their pinned with).

But this might not have been brought up (i haven't had the time to read through EVERY comment here). It's still worth it to note though:

One of my big reasons for why I think this cover was a failure was because if it was meant to lampoon the ideas, they did the worst thing they could do: literally paint Obama as every bad rumor/myth surrounding them. And with how this all has been perpetuated with whisper campaigns and under the board kind of nudge-nudge tactics, making the image explicit does nothing to fight against it or lampoon it.

In other words, the cartoon's effect is almost the utter complete opposite of what its intentions were.