Obama, criticism, the campaign, and the media

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/is_there_a_double_standard_for.html

I don't get this, really. I mean I understand Obama has a "sheen" akin to an, especially posthumous, JFK. What I don't get is how that sheen has done anything more than detracted from the issues in a manner that watching vs. listening to the JFK/Nixon debate did. I mean if a reporter feels he is a good orator then maybe they should report that?

Here's the thing though, has the press systematically done a poor job at critiquing each candidate. I would argue yes, but not for reasons of race and gender, but for reasons of substance.

What I would like to see is a simple matrix that looks at voting records (NOMINATE scores for example ... see here: http://www.icons.umd.edu/2002/senate/nominate.htm ), policy positions, and stances/promises. This way I could see where, at the margins, Obama differs from Hillary.

Stop telling me about yes we can, 3am phone calls, and Obama's middle name. I don't care that Hillary had botox, that Obama's pastor is senile, and that several people in Hillary's campaign think Obama is using "black" magic to get elected. How I am supposed to logically chose between these candidates if all I know about them is sillyness? Cut it out MEDIA.