I think extra scrutiny for Obama is appropriate as soon as McCain concedes. To do otherwise would be insulting to McCain.

Now, now, let's remember the extra scrutiny the press gave Bush as President...oh, wait...

If Balz would have proposed this in 2004 he would have more standing. But the press gave Bush a free pass in 2004, as the sitting commander-in-chief, and spent most of their time challenging even the idea that Kerry and the Democrats were ready to lead on national security and foreign policy.

Did George Bush deserve the assumptions of confidence that were his by default in 2004? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think anybody things so in hindsight.

I read this yesterday and thought it was very odd as well. Over the past few months I've tried to pay more attention to articles with a Dan Balz byline. My sense, unfortunately, is that 9 times out of ten, Balz writes with a slant that undermines the democrat or reinforces the superiority of the republican. It became so apparent to me that I actually tried to find out more about Balz to see if there was something in his biography that gave a clue to his almost transparent bias. I've never done that for any other reporter. Now I read Balz not to learn anything newsworthy but just to see what right-leaning storyline he is pushing.

Is he selling buyers' remorse? It's not to take the unknown path, you know.

Actually, I think Obama can only benefit by increased scrutiny of his policies.
By all means, give him more facetime to explain what he intends to do about the economic crisis! Discuss his foreign policy positions in depth! Examine his health care proposals! They really should do it for both candidates, but increased attention to Obama's positions would be an important contribution to the campaign.

Of course, that's not what the media does these days: "increased attention" means increased batting about of Republican smears, increased talking to each other about their own unsubstantiated opinions, and increased rhetorical questions that they won't let Obama or his campaign answer, and more Anthomy Martin-Trigona.

Perhaps Dan Balz should be scrutinized for asking such qustions now. Most have been answered by Obama throughout his campaign. MCCain on the other hand has not answered the questions satisfactorily.

"ought not to be any moratorium on asking hard questions of both candidates right now,

There's always a first time for everything I guess.

...start holding Obama to a higher standard.

1) He has been held to a higher standard from Day one. Au courant proof: The media will discuss Ayers but not G. Gordon Liddy or First Dude's AIP devotions. Not even a hint of an equivalency!

2) The race is a long way from over. I am reminded of one of Lance's statements to a teammate on the tour: Ride like you stole something. Don't hear or whisper a complacent word. The time is now: Pedal like hell. Your life depends on it...

Eyes on the prize please.

Why give Obama more scrutiny? Because the attention might force his numbers down and make this a horse race again.

And in the end, that is the only true motivating factor for most of the mainstream media.

Of course, if Obama answered any of the questions, it would just prove he is "presumptuous."

maybe Balz can write about the fact that Palin isn't going to give a press conference before the election. especially in the wake of troopergate.

Message from Dan Balz: "How adaptable is Obama to all of this? How willing is he to address these questions in real time, as opposed to later?" Etc.

Message to Dan Balz (first thought): Uh, Dan, why do you think Obama is leading in the polls?

Message to Dan Balz (second thought): Hello? Anybody home?

Election *day* may be three weeks away, but the election is happening right now; votes are being cast right now. Lots of 'em.

This totally misses the point. If Obama were jumping up and down with his head up his @ss every time he got in front of a television camera, I'm sure he'd be getting a lot of "hard" questions, too.

Over the past few weeks the McCain campaign has become a grotesque trainwreck of lies, smears and downright stupidity. That tends to attract a lot of attention.

Nothing new in this other than Balz actually articulating what the press will soon begin to do. Thomas Patterson's great book Out of Order (written 15 years ago) shows that a far-ahead frontrunner eventually attracts more negative press for this reason. Doesn't make it right, but it's essentially the flip side of the negative mainstream coverage that McCain has attracted as his support has fallen off.

Swing Low sweet tire swing, swing long and loooooooowww.... down... now...

pbg: Actually, I think Obama can only benefit by increased scrutiny of his policies.

But Balz is not suggesting anyone scrutinize Obama's policies. The mass media have studiously avoided looking at actual policy matters during Presidential campaigns for decades now, and they clearly have no intention ever to start.

Who in the mass media, for example, questioned Reagan's claim in 1980 that he was going to double the defense budget, cut taxes for millionaires and balance the budget, all at the same time? When G. W. Bush made the same claim in 2000, who beside that crazy shrill man Paul Krugman questioned him?

No, Balz proposes that the media should double up their efforts to report rumors and innuendoes and gossip and commentary about Obama's lifestyle, personal tastes, and preferences in fashion.

Posted by: on October 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM-

Yeah butt one-half of the other side plans to continue to sream off with da head, and terrorist, and invoke the great turban feared one, and so I dunno if your 15 year old screed knew to the extent our media has the inclination to chase the wayward soccer ball that is McPalin

Dan Balz, David Brooks, David Broder ... I used to like these guys and read them regularly, I admit: but they really have their heads up their butts, don't they? So much of the MSM is so fundamentally flawed. And so deeply implicated in the bad situation the country finds itself in now.

"Is he ... committed to a more ideologically oriented agenda, as his critics say?"

Don't you see? This is just an excuse for repeating the "Obama is a terrorist" line.

Hey, two standards are better than one, right!?

Off point a bit - yes we have 3 v. long weeks to go before the election - and anything can happen - if the last 3 weeks repeat we could end up with the poll numbers reversed! But as noted, a wagering person might conclude that Obama's current position is the better bet. McCain is still trying (new economic plan today?) and as we move closer to election there will be more pressure / desperation? So the Mavs may throw up more "stuff" to see what sticks - and who knows what may resonate with a panicked electorate. But I have to admit I have been wondering more and more of late what an Obama precedency will look like - his cabinet, other appointees, judicial nominees, his handling of the economic mess - I wonder if most would see it as a repudiation of Bush (and to some extent McCain) or as an affirmation (remember - Bush's "I have a Mandate" rhetoric) of Obama's view - time will tell...

They want a close race.

Does Dan realize that election day is not the same as inauguration day? The kind of scrutiny he wants would be appropriate for the president-elect.

Does Dan realize that election day is not the same as inauguration day? The kind of scrutiny he wants would be appropriate for the president-elect.

Dan Balz's article is silly because the corporate-owned media has already been applying a "double standard" throughout the campaign.

The corporate media's double standard is to demonize and character-assassinate Obama, while glorifying Palin and McCain.

Balz is asking the media to do what it has been doing all along.

> And of course questions from the media is A Bad Thing?

Only if they are deliberately being asked of just one of the candidates. And especially if it is likely to set up the narative "There have been a lot of questions about candidate X recently regarding whether he should be president, and whether his policies are good for America!" wink-wink.

This is known as the "where there's smoke" attack. As people have said, what Balz is suggesting should be saved for the president-elect (whomever that may be). Anything else is naked partisanship.

'The race isn't completely over, Balz concedes, but given Obama's current lead, questions from the media "ought to be going toward him as much or more than McCain."'

It would be about time. They've had 18 months to do so and didn't.

Of course Mr. Benen thinks this is foolish. Because it puts his candidate at risk of actually having to explain himself and his putrid policies, which may cost Obama the election.

Over the past few weeks the McCain campaign has become a grotesque trainwreck of lies, smears and downright stupidity. That tends to attract a lot of attention. Posted by: Bill in Chicago

Not nearly enough. The media should be all over Palin after Friday's finding.

The Rethugs are asking the public to elect someone to ostensibly the second highest office in government that has problems running a state with a population smaller than more than 50 cities in the nation without resorting to bush league pettiness. Maybe that kind of shit is okay in Wasilla (who cares in a city with a population less than 10,000?), but we're coming to the end of perhaps the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history. You'd think that people would be a little more attentive to this sort of thing.

Then again, the boundaries have been pushed so far that the idea of an ethical elected official just must seem ludicrous any longer.

It's yet another attempt by the MSM to turn the election into a closely contested race, purely for the purpose of increasing ratings, readership, etc.

Dumber'n dog shit and half as pleasant.

You know, when a team in the Super Bowl is up by 2 touchdowns, I think it's only appropriate to tie 20 pound weights to each team member's ankles. You know. MAKE THINGS FAIR.

Whenever it looks like a high school student is about to become the class valedictorian, it's only fair that the #2 student in school be allowed to pummel that kid with a tire iron. JUST once or twice, dumb the smart-ass up a little, miss a few days of school. You know, MAKE THINGS FAIR.

Oh, and if a Democrat is ever winning an election, we sbould always be allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED, to assume the Democrat is doing something wrong, and the Republican needs some extra special TLC. Maybe some donuts. With sprinkles. You know. MAKE THINGS FAIR.

Becuase if competitions aren't always close, then the victor must be punished.

I never doubted that the MSM wants a "contest' until the very end. They are willing to frame this election in such a way as to suggest that even the most ridiculous behavior has some redeeming value. CNN just had a panel this weekend discussing the racial aspects of an Obama Campaign and has now , apparently, moved on to "What if Obama was a Muslim?" Would someone please come up with a "clearinghouse" idea on how to force the MSM to meet their obligation to the Public. Or do they not believe they have one? They have been failing us since the Iraq War began and continue to do so. They plea "impartiality" but fail to deliver the truth.

I shouldn't be trying to put words in Dan Balz's mouth, but....

I interpret him as saying that McCain is irrelevent now, so why bother to ask him any hard questions. On the other hand, Obama is now our real, if unofficial, president, so treat him that way.

Balts writes:

"Nor is it evident that he has dealt realistically with the impact the economic crisis may have on the next president. He has not backed away from ambitious plans for a second stimulus package..."

The government should push against the economic cycle. It is appropriate to spend to stimulate the economy as we enter into a recession.

To translate, Baltz wants the press to ask Obama "given the current economic crisis, what will you do to make sure the recession is longer and deeper than it would otherwise be?"

Sounds like those lunches with Kurtz and Kraut are working.

It seems generous to assert that McCain's gambling habit assumes an assessment of risk.

http://postboomer.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccains-gambling-addiction.html

Sure, this wouldn't fit right in with McCain's newest complaint (what a whiny prick) that Obama is "already measuring the drapes". It would certainly fit that little narrative nicely, which from the looks of it, is what this Balz fellow really means to achieve.

Nor is it evident that he has dealt realistically with the impact the economic crisis may have on the next president. He has not backed away from ambitious plans for a second stimulus package...

Um, Keynsian economics recognizes that an ambitious stimulus package is exactly what is needed in the face of a deepening recession. YOu don't want to back away from a stimulus now, when government is going to be the only actor pumping money into the economy to make up for the short-fall by business.

Stupid reporters....

And of course questions from the media is A Bad Thing?

No, but deliberately obtuse trolling is.

Say what you will about the Washington Post, they have Balz....
(and Cohen, and Broder, and Will, and Krauthammer, and Hiatt, and Marcus, and...)

It would be nice to see some semblance of journalism practiced somewhere on the East Coast.

Given that Obama has for 18 months been given a free ride by the Press and cable 'news', it is about time that he just get 'equal questioning' by somebody with enough fundamental integrity to remember what was taught in journalism school. Assuming that they teach integrity in journalism school, that is.

this guy doesn't bother me nearly as much as Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. Dan Balz is predictable. We know where he is coming from. With the former Clinton advisors we get articles about how Mccain has lost, the race is over, there's nothing left to see. What's more bizarre is they are diagnosing McCain's problems as not the result of skill by Obama but rather by failures by McCain (in the case of Wolfson) and unforseen (except of course by Hillary in the case of Penn). Somebody has got to encourage these guys to not try to salvage theirown careers by stepping on Obama's back. Whether Obama wins or looses Penn and Wolfson can try to run again next time. For now, they need to determine for themselves as to if they are Democrats or not.

There is still a race to be won. Obama is winning skillfully but has a ways to go.

In case Dan Balz wasn't aware, Obama has put a transition team in place, to prepare, in case he does win - and McCain hasn't (this is from the New Yorker magazine) - so who's more ready to adapt to a changing landscape? It's not Obama's preparedness or flexibility Balz ought to question.

Score! I'd prefer to see Balz's piece as an unqualified endorsement! The take-away for a low information voter is "Obama's gonna win." Everything else (if they actually read beyond the first two paragraphs) is too "look at me being smarter than you" to register. It's cable-friendly content-less speculation that invites tuning out. So it's just another Obama endorsement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg

Issues that Obama supporters support!

idi I saw this earlier and its great I will pass it along. Information on the issues for Obama supporters its a must.

The author says:
Jonathan Chait's conclusion in response to Balz was spot on: "I've heard reporters admit that coverage can be biased for one reason or another -- ideology, desire for a close race, personal affinity for one of the candidates -- but I've never before seen one openly propose a double standard.

Wait. What's the difference between a media "biased for" a candidate and a media using a "double standard"? And is there any question that the MSM has been extraordinarily biased for Obama?

This article is as loopy as the media has been shameless in this campaign.