The most frustrating part is that the Bush White Hosue publicly declars, "this is how we are going to manipulate the media".

Then, right on cue, the media is manipulated, right in front of our, and their eyes. And, while it is going on, not one of them appears aware that it its happening.

And it happens over and over again.

In addition to being vapid, our reporters are obviously very weak individuals.

And the rest of us pay the price.

I believe you are correct.

While I agree that it’s best to fight under the Marquess of Queensberry rules I hope that Obama’s people are keeping a careful eye on the polls so when necessary they can slip the knee in to even up the fight. To do otherwise would indeed be effete.

It also occurs to me that the Republicans have a lot more to lose then the presidency; even the remotest possibility of retribution for criminal actions would be a strong motivator to fight with every weapon available.

[T]he related sin: "presumptuous" -- has become standard, mandated media script.

Indeed. I sat through two consecutive shows on MSNBC last night with talking heads discussing the burning question of whether Obama is "presumptuous" (see comments on Digby's post about this; click sig for link).

Cheers,

[CNN's Campbell Brown]: But is Obama vulnerable? Is he arrogant? . . . David, the McCain campaign, Republicans, they are consistently playing up this notion that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant. Can they stick him with this label?

Yes ........ if you morons and azos keep repeating their "talking points" for them 24X7 ..... <*SHEESH*>

Cheers,

Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps. . . .

A mistake is something you do in error, something you regret, something you try not to do again. What you did was not a mistake, Adam - it's the way you operate, then and now.

The press will undoubtedly use criticisms like the one Glenn lays out today to justify their professionalism. "See," they'll say, "we're getting hammered by critics on the Left and the Right. We must be doing our jobs well."

If the press' real job was to keep the public informed of the critical issues of the day, an alternative explanation would be obvious. The fact that everyone along the entire political spectrum is always upset with them shows that the press is really, really bad at uncovering and presenting the truth.

But of course, keeping the public informed is not the press' primary task. It is, rather, to attract potential consumers to the advertisers who ultimately pay their salaries. What better way to do this than through these manufactured "controversies".

They're all over this story this morning. Including a total thrashing of Milbank. I read Milbank's article of yesterday, yesterday. I was agape because it was so bad. Of course the Howler reminded me this morning that Milbank has been that bad for a very long time.

http://dailyhowler.com/

What, exactly, is he presuming? Doesn't anyone in the media think about what a word means before they use it?

[I]t's evidence that they are political sophisticates plugged into the important election themes ("Obama is arrogant and presumptuous").

Instead of taking two consecutive shows of talking heads to cover the burning question of whether Obama is "presumptuous", couldn't they have taken one of those shows to cover what it would mean to be "presumptuous" and why the f*ck anyone should care about such alleged 'personality traits' (as opposed to, say, stated public policy stances)?!?!? You know, some in-depth reporting, what is "presumptuous", who is "presumptuous" (and who's been a thin-skinned azo and what does that mean as well), and maybe some historical perspective on previous "presumptuous" presidents and how that worked out, etc. But that would require knowledge, work, and a smidgen of intelligence.....

Cheers,

Surely a moment of reflection would make a journalist of any minimal intelligence realize that the Cokie Roberts-style "It's out there" argument for covering sleaze and inanity makes no sense if he/she is the one actually putting it out there?

"Ohhhh, but everyone else is......"

Piling on can't make the least bit of difference ... can it?

Cheers,

My apologies if this has already been stated, but it may be a GOOD thing that the "Rovian" touch is being employed. In my conversations and observations over the past few years, I've noticed a substantial rejection of these tactics by the vast majority of people I encounter. Most realize how disgusting, fact-free, and useless these kinds of ads, attacks, and issue-free diatribes are, and they are fully intending on voting those kinds of tactics off the ballot.

For McSame to adopt these tactics after clearly and in no uncertain terms saying he would not, provides yet another example of his rampant flip-flopping and talking out of both sides of his mouth. These two factors combined will (in my estimation) turn away many more independents and fence-sitters than it will gain for McSame. Perhaps he's trying to solidify his base with these tactics, and that may just have a positive effect on them. But a far larger number of undecideds will be turned completely off by this, especially if Obama remains calm, factual, but tenacious in fighting off these repeated smears.

More Karl Rove, I say. Bring it on as hot and thick as you please. All they are doing is digging their own grave, and they're going WAAAAY deeper than 6 feet on this one. The coffin will not only hit with a mighty "Thunk!," it will shatter into pieces and expose the rotting rethuglicans for even more people to see them for what they really are.

So we'll see how it plays out. I've seen this movie before, I'm afraid.

What are you saying, that Rove and the Republicans' tactics will succeed again and Obama will be Willie Horton-ed or Swiftboat-ed right out of the White House (so to speak)?

has been all over the visual angle of this narrative. [FWIW, The BAG was awarded Gilliard Grant of Merit for Excellence in Journalism and News Blogging and the site's creator is Michael Shaw who, I believe, has a PhD in Clinical Psychology.]

He's been following the uppity, arrogant, presumptuous, alien, "other-ness," unknowable ... themes as they have been reinforced in media visuals for some time.

Nearly, everything currently sitting on the BAG's front page is relevant to to this discussion - along with the next meme to follow. And, the next one (Jul 31, 2008; Celeb #2: Exploding Obama's Appeal) really is creepy.

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/

As for

Five weeks ago, on June 23, Karl Rove appeared at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club, mocked Obama as "the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by," and labeled him "cooly arrogant."

That's plainly, screamingly, wishfully projected Freudian thinking on Rove's part. Only in your dreams Karl could you affect that level of smooth. Instead, Karl is the dumpy, balding, bespectacled, questionably-coordinated, waddling man with the nickname Turd-blossom. How stark could the contrast be?