"I'm Shocked To Find That Gambling Is Going On In Here!"

The ombudsman for the Washington Post acknowledges that the paper's coverage was biased toward Barack Obama.  Key graphs from the column:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Sadly, this "news" comes a little too late.  It will be interesting to see if some of the other MSM outlets come clean.

Update on Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 11:21AM by Joe

I just read Ed Morrissey's commentary on the Washington Post's Claude Rains moment.  Ed makes an insightful observation about the way the paper's ombudsman framed the coverage of Sarah Palin.  Rather than contrast how Palin was covered compared to Joe Biden, the ombudsman should have scorched the paper for its dogged investigations into Sarah Palin and its seeming indifference to anything resembling investigative journalism where Barack Obama was concerned.  From Ed's post:

The hell with Joe Biden.  Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama?  The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama.  Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP.  And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.

Where were the Post reporters doing the same thing in Chicago?  Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column.  We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media.  And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it.  Where was Howell during the last three months?  Why wait until the election is over to speak up?  That’s an answer in itself.

Ed's upset, and I don't blame him one bit.

McCain Warned Congress About Fannie and Freddie

It turns out that one presidential candidate predicted the fallout from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and actually tried to do something to prevent it.  That candidate is John McCain.

Back in 2005, Senator McCain co-sponsored legislation know as the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Senator McCain's statement at the time indicated his concern with "illusions," "scandal," and "manipulation" on the part of management.  He also expressed concerns with an insufficient regulatory structure.  Senator McCain stated the following back in 2005:

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

Despite his urgings, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act didn't garner enough support to pass out of committee.

Senator McCain also spoke on the harmful and destructive role of lobbyists in corrupting Fannie and Freddie:

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.

Ahh, those pernicious Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists.  Could they be the same lobbyists who gave Senator Obama $126,349, making him the second largest congressional recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money between the years 1989-2008?  That's a pretty hefty amount of money considering Obama has only been in the Senate for four years!

Accepting huge amounts of money from entities regulated and bailed out by the Federal government sure doesn't sound like the kind of change for which we've been waiting.

Want Some Cheese With That Whine?

The Obama campaign is really on the defensive these days.  In response to huge polling shifts, particularly a Washington Post poll showing a 20-point swing toward McCain among white women, the Obama campaign has started to whine:

Asked about the findings during a briefing on Monday before the poll was published, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, "Well, your poll is wrong."

The polls are wrong, McCain is lying, Republicans are going to try and tell you that I'm a Muslim, Governor Palin would be a backward step for women if elected vice president, lawyer deployments, etc. etc. etc.

I do believe panic is setting in.

McCain Night

John McCain is not a great orator.  This is no surprise.  His speech was effective, though, because he sold his greatest commodities -- toughness, experience, independence, devotion, honor, commitment and sacrifice.  The speech oozed with these themes.  John McCain will be running as the real agent of reform, and the one whose devotion and service to his country uniquely position him as deserving of the Oval Office.  The McCain brand is the reformer we trust and admire.  This contrasts with his opponent who talks of change but has never delivered.  It's a difference between one who has accomplished through deeds versus one who is only accomplished with words.  It's the man who has plumbed the depths of experience, however unpleasant at times, against the man who has written two memoirs without really having done anything noteworthy or truly sacrificial by comparison.  It's the old lion versus the young buck, and the young buck may have a lesson or two to learn before its all said and done.

My initial assessment is that the majority of those who watched the speech from their homes will go to bed this evening with a tremendous amount of admiration for John McCain the man.

GOP Benefits With Degree in Palintology

Sarah Palin was an inspired choice and signifies that the McCain campaign is going to steal away the mantle of "change and reform" from Obama.  The MSM is a little behind the curve on this, and still wondering why McCain would make a choice that potentially undermines his experience argument.  They'll catch on soon enough....

Governor Palin brings several things to the GOP ticket.  First and foremost, she brings a fresh face untainted by the Washington beltway establishment.  Secondly, she is a rock-ribbed conservative.  Thirdly, she has the credentials of a reformer who took on the sacred cows and corruption of the male-dominated GOP establishment in Alaska.  Finally, she will almost certainly appeal to a large enough segment of the female Clinton voters who believe that Hillary was snubbed by Obama.  Palin won't bring over the hard-core liberal women, but she will cause the working class women who live in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania to take a serious look at the GOP ticket.

Let's Talk About Judgment

Joe Biden believes that Barack Obama has better judgment than John McCain on foreign policy. 

This is the same Joe Biden who proclaimed his confidence in John McCain's leadership by embracing the thought of joining McCain on a national ticket. 

Are we to really take Joe Biden at his word, despite his previous criticisms of Obama's thin resume, which prompted Biden to denounce Obama's candidacy on the grounds that the White House is no place for on-the-job training? 

This is the same Joe Biden who argues that John McCain showed poor judgment, when compared to Barack Obama, in supporting the Iraq invasion, despite himself voting if favor of the invasion. 

Are we to conclude that Obama must therefore be exercising poor judgment by selecting Biden?  Does Obama really want to risk the possibility that Joe Biden may be in a position to assume the presidency and perhaps make the same kind of foreign policy "mistake" as did President Bush.  Wouldn't "good judgment" call for a running mate who also opposed the invasion? 

Does Joe Biden believe that Barack Obama's opposition on the surge, a winning strategy championed early by John McCain, is demonstrative of superior judgment?