A friend writes, "I was a bit surprised at how pro-Obama last night's post-debate
commentary was. Were they being objective, or has the media already
decided that Obama is going to win and they want to be on his good side?" I had the same impression. It seemed to me that McCain won the debate by speaking in a pithy manner and by using anecdotes effectively: The North Koreans are three inches shorter than South Koreans on average. (Though my wife (who didn't sleep through most of it) says he seemed the ancient warrior, looking backward.)
My reading is that the media are taking sides for a different reason: they are mature liberal babyboomers who are now doing their utmost to avert catastrophe. They dropped the ball on the Iraq war and now they are exercising their elite judgment to try and get Obama elected. It's the conclusion I draw from the transparently-biased Times piece a couple weeks back saying that Sarah Palin's executive style is one of vendettas. They're out to get her. They hate Palin; are angered that McCain would elevate her. I'm gaga for Barack so I don't think there's anything wrong with this. Sometimes elites play an important role. The idea so promoted now on the cable stations that our president should be someone who can relate to ordinary people–as Obama obviously cannot; I bet he forgets names–is a false value. Our president should be really smart and have good cool judgment and talk to Iran and feel tremendous responsibility for ordinary people. As George Bush, who yes I'd really like to drink beer with, did not. The media have had enough. I'm reminded of Peter Kaplan, my editor at the NY Observer, closing the door one day and shaking his head and saying angrily: "How did we let this happen?!" Meaning the Iraq war. Well I didn't let it happen; but he was saying that the elite media had been completely derelict. Not this time 'round.
