The political pundits, the John McCain campaign and journalist critics like Howard Kurtz of Reliable Sources are attacking the media in general for their coverage of Barack Obama’s campaign compared with their coverage of John McCain’s.

I’d be real curious if given a listing of all the events that have taken place by both political candidates since the Democratic Primary has ended (you can go further back if you’d like) – which of these events would have these same critics chosen to attend and report on?

I’d like to hear why they chose one over the other or why not.

It’s easy to criticize the media for their coverage; but when you look at the total political picture things may appear different.  When you add in the factor that the media is a ‘business’ that needs viewers to keep afloat, it’s not as easy as one would assume, to pick and choose between events to report on or not – and be fair to both parties in doing so.

Back in the Election 2000 cycle, it was Senator John McCain first, and then Governor George W. Bush 2nd that got the ‘good’ press, while Vice President Al Gore got the worse coverage.  The media ‘fell in love’ with the “straight talk express” of John McCain.

During the Election 2004 cycle, it was President George W. Bush that got the good press coverage while Senator John Kerry got attacked for every word he made.

Every election year we hear complaints about unfair coverage.  While it may be true that Senator Barack Obama is getting the ‘most’ coverage, it’s not necessarily all ‘good’ coverage.  

Not all the media ‘love’ Obama.  He’s been under attack and close personal scrutiny since he won Iowa’s primary.  Most of the personal attacks have been ‘personal in nature’ mainly because Obama doesn’t have the decades of political experience behind him that Senator McCain has.  

This also gives reason to why Senator Obama is given more coverage.  The public desires to ‘know’ more about this man.  The media and political pundits are also trying their level best to catch the man in the act of doing wrong so as to have a ‘breaking news’ story to report on.

Last buy not least; one must give Senator Obama a little credit for making the campaign ‘interesting and news worthy’.  Such as his unknown record, his winning Iowa and many other states after that, his topping Senator Hillary Clinton in delegate counts, his huge campaign rallies with crowds in the ten’s of thousands, his very unusual speeches and all with, very few political gaffes, etc…

Compare those facts to Senator John McCain’s unlikely win of the GOP primary, his much smaller campaign rallies or town hall meetings, his constant political gaffes, his past being well known and you might get the picture of why the media set their sites on Senator Barack Obama instead.

Unfair coverage – perhaps; But the coverage is logical.

U.S. commanders are asking the Pentagon for up to 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

The request was a subject of discussion when President Bush met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on Wednesday.

But getting more troops to the increasingly violent battle zone is unlikely to happen before Bush leaves office in January, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

"This government is going to work to provide additional forces for Afghanistan next year. How many, whether it's the three additional brigades that the commanders want, I think is a question, frankly, for the next administration,"

There won't be enough troops to send to Afghanistan any time soon because of commitments in Iraq, which is the priority for the Pentagon
.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said time and time again Iraq is a mission we must do. Afghanistan is a mission we do as we can," Morrell said.

Excuse me?  Our soldiers in Afghanistan must ‘wait’ for help?  

Can’t you just see a sliver of our soldiers being surrounded by hundreds of Taliban insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan, yelling into their communication devices requesting immediate help and being told by their commanders that they’ll have to wait till January21st 2009?

John McCain’s assertion that the violence is down in Iraq because of the ‘surge’ of troops that was sent there is a typical political maneuver by the Republican Party. 

It’s like their repeated assertions over the years that President Ronald Reagan’s speech in West Berlin 21 years ago, asking Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall” – was the pivoting point for stopping the cold war and the fall of communism.

President Reagan said that day, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The reality is, there were many contributing factors to why the cold war ended;  President Carter, President Reagan and the Congress’s during those years, increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressure on the Soviet Union to name a few things.

Pope John Paul II helped provide a moral focus for anti-communism; a visit to his native Poland in 1979 stimulated a religious and nationalist upsurge that galvanized opposition.

One example of such a move by the U.S., with the background of a buildup in tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, and the deployment of Soviet missiles targeting Western Europe, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Carter presidency, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe.  This deployment would have placed missiles just 10 minutes' striking distance from Moscow. Yet support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted whether the push for deployment could be sustained. But in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean Air Lines Flight, with 269 people aboard when it violated Soviet airspace just past the west coast of Sakhalin Island—an act which Reagan characterized as a "massacre". This act galvanized support for the deployment, which Reagan oversaw and stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Gorbachev himself, when he took power, redirected the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector.

In other words folks, there were many reasons the Soviet Union fell apart and the Cold War ended.  While a brilliant political move it was, President Reagan’s speech alone, did not stop the Cold War.  Just as the build up of troops, called the ‘surge’, into Iraq, while helpful, is not the only reason that violence dropped (note: violence hasn’t stopped and our generals on the ground say the situation there remains fragile).  

There were other contributing factors to drop of violence in Iraq, such as the ‘Awakening’ group of over 100,000 Iraqis being paid $300 per month by the U.S. to protect their own neighborhoods.

Now Senator McCain is saying, after a surge timeline gaffe, that what the Bush administration calls "the surge" was actually "made up of a number of components." McCain says some components of the surge began before Bush ordered more U.S. troops into Iraq.  

McCain is now claiming credit for the ‘Awakening’ idea?  TPM: Hmmm. McCain is crediting the success of the surge to strategic components that didn't involve the actual increase in troops? Sounds a bit like he's undermining the troops, doesn't it?

Senator McCain’s claim that Senator Barack Obama is denying the ‘surge’ worked – is simply a lie.  Senator Obama has said on many occasions that the ‘surge’ helped to stop the violence in Iraq.  As recently as July 22nd he said the following, “he was pleased with the reduction of violence in Iraq since the deployment of more U.S. troops, but said it was a result of several factors, not just the surge.  I am pleased that as a consequence of great effort by our troops — but also as a consequence of a shift in allegiances among the Sunni tribal leaders, as well as the decision of the Sadr militias to stand down — that we've seen a quelling of violence”

Lastly, if the ‘surge’ worked as Senator McCain keeps saying – why then are we still there?  If you repair a leak on your roof, you ‘fixed’ it - right?  Why would you stay on the roof after fixing it?  Are you going to stay up there to wait for rain and another leak?

The 'surge' helped, it didn't work - or we'd be leaving immediately.

Senator John McCain is claiming that a total of about 30,000 additional troops in Iraq - saved Iraq -- bullwicky!

The the tribal groups assembled into Awakening forces of over 100,000 'along with' our additional 30,000 troops helped to curb the violence.  The surge did not work or solve all the problems.

There is still violence in Iraq, civilians are still dying.  The Generals repeatedly tell us that this CALM in Iraq could be just temporary.  If the Awakening group STOPS helping to root out the enemy - we'll be back to before 2007.

The surge HELPED to calm things -- that's all.

Th idea of the surge was to get the political side working -- that's not happened yet.  They're still fighting among each other.

This CALM we see in Iraq is very breakable.

If the SURGE had WORKED as McCain and the GOP claim -- the CALM would be PERMANENT -- not FRAGILE!

Are you a Republican or an Independent?  Are you ready to vote for Senator John McCain today, if not why not?

I was also wondering if Senator John McCain were to ask Condi Rice to run as his VP, whether or not you that idea would change your opinion, if not why.

If you are a Democrat, would you vote for McCain right now?  Would it change your mind to see Condi Rice as his running mate?

Senator John McCain is playing the, candidate Senator Hillary Clinton game with the media.

When Hillary’s campaign began complaining about the way the media ‘loved’ Senator Barack Obama and was picking on Hillary, most Obama supporters said, “it won’t work Hillary”; but it actually ‘did’ work.

Hillary’s campaign aide Howard Wolfson, now a Fox News contributor, said last night on Hannity and Colmes that complaining about media coverage didn’t work; that it was only until Hillary’s message started to resonate did her campaign start to pick up.

I disagree with Wolfson.  Hillary's message didn't change.  The complaints worked.  It just took a bit sink in.  The media needed time to ‘regroup’ and ‘plan’ their next moves.

Hillary’s only wrong move was, she waited too long to start complaining.  By the time the media had done their ‘regrouping’ and ‘planning’, Barack Obama had already won enough delegates to trump Hillary with.

Senator McCain is playing it smart (unfortunately).  He’s starting his complaining a full three months before Election Day; Plenty of time for the media to play the old switch-a-roo.

I’m betting we’ll be seeing, once the fall season begins, a Saturday Night Live sketch showing Senator John McCain with Senator Hillary Clinton standing over him, comforting him by patting him on the back and hugging him, while he moans and cries over being ignored or picked on by the media.

Sometime in late September, I’m betting we’ll be seeing more scandalous stories about Barack Obama, or more personal attacks made against him.  So that when the debates are held in October, Obama will have to answer questions about them.  Thereby once again, hurting his chances of winning in November, as they did just before the last of the Democratic primary was held.

All the Obama supporters can hope for is that their candidate has very good responses to those attacks.

Barack Obama said the following about Iraq:

"The notion is that either I do exactly what my military commanders [say] or I'm ignoring their advice. No, I'm factoring in their advice, but placing it in the broader strategic framework that's required."

Barack Obama’s statement makes me think of the priorities within one’s own home.  Some of us, because of lack of funds or man/woman power, need to prioritize the special needs of that home.

Let’s say that your home needs the following items:  new carpeting, a new refrigerator, a new car and a new roof.

Let us also assume you have children living at home.  All these items by themselves are extremely important; but the provider(s) of the home must look at the totality of the needed devices or repairs.

Because of the lack of funding, they must prioritize the needs and evaluate the benefits of each item and/or repair.  The must factor in the supply and demands.

Each member (General in the case with Obama) of the family expresses their expert opinion about the need for each item.  Grandma says, “I need a refrigerator to store food in for the family to eat.”  The son says, “I need a car to get to school in.”  The daughter says, “We need new carpet, what will our friends say when they see this one?”  The dad says, “We need a new roof to keep the rain and snow out of the house. “

Most individuals would say that the new roof and refrigerator had priority over a new car and new carpeting.  But if you think about it, what about having transportation to work and school; aren’t those necessary too?  If you can’t get to work, you’ll have no money to fix anything or buy anything with.

That’s where Barack Obama’s statement comes into play.  He's factoring in their advice, but placing it in the broader strategic framework that's required.

Each general on the ground needs something, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Each believes his or her demands are more important for their part of the mission then the other’s.
 
Back in America, there are economy problems, people without jobs or health care, banks having financial problems and the environment is in peril.  Congress and Americans are demanding immediate action.

A commander-n-chief must consider all the demands and all the needs.  He or she must look at what is available to try and solve those problems.  They must decide which item or demand to put American’s precious lives, money and time into.

A general on the other hand, looks at his/her one mission, as do the majors under him/her, the coronels under him/her and the lieutenant under him/her.
They ‘all’ have demands. 

Think of it as a trickle down chain of command supply and demand.  The generals like Barack Obama will ‘also’ have to decide which demand or item shall be taken care of with the supplies or money that the commander-n-chief has provided them with. 

This process goes down that chain of command, all the way down to your lonely grunt in the field.

It's all about supply and demand.

Political pundits are discussing tonight that the Iraqi government has essentially backed Barack Obama’s, condition based, 16 month withdraw from Iraq. They even claim that the administration’s announcement on accepting a ‘time horizon’ for withdraw of troops, is just one more gold nugget for Obama’s foreign policy plans.

While on the face of it, the pundits seem to be right. President Bush and Senator John McCain are backed up to a wall. What can they do now? They’ve both been seen and recorded as saying if the Iraqis’ ask us to leave, “we will leave”.

Even though Barack Obama announced upon his arrival in Afghanistan, that he will be pushing no agenda, that we already have one President, that’s his job, it would appear that the Iraqis’ have accepted Obama as the next President by agreeing with his plans for leaving Iraq.

I have a question? Could Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Maliki’s position on a 2010 withdraw date for American troops to leave -- backfire on Senator Barack Obama?

What’s stopping Senator John McCain sometime immediately after General Petraeus’s briefing to Congress in September (presumably Petraeus will announce a successful mission and that more troops ‘will indeed’ be leaving Iraq before the end of the year), from coming out and saying,

    My fellow Americans, the Surge worked. The surge that I began pushing for years ago, has worked. General Petraeus just reported to Congress that more troops are beginning to come home. We also told that the Iraqi government, feels secure enough now, to ask that we begin a ‘conditions based’ withdraw. They ask that we set a goal for the end of 2010. As President Bush and I have both stated previously, if asked, we will leave; that my friend is called ‘Victory’.

Senator McCain, with that statement alone, is not advocating a time line, he's just saying the Iraqis' are doing so. It implies however, that we 'are' going to begin leaving soon, and we're able to do so, simply because the 'surge' worked and the Iraqi government has asked us to.

I hope Senator Obama has a comeback to this possible scenario.