First of all, Halperin’s point is painfully stupid as a matter of political analysis — which naturally invites suspicion that Halperin has an agenda. (It’s hard to believe Halperin is stupid enough to think it hurts Obama that McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns. Halperin’s point seems to be that ANY attack on McCain by Obama will suddenly inspire a round of withering attacks against Obama.)

One thing that makes Halperin’s point so stupid is his apparent belief that McCain has yet to really go after Obama regarding Rezko or Wright. This is preposterous: the Wright scandal emerged in the spring of this year, at a time when everyone in America who pays attention to politics was watching video clips of Wright’s sermons and endless discussion of them on cable news. And the Rezko scandal has also been a topic of discussion in the mainstream media for months — more than a year if you count the very first mentions of this “scandal”.

So the question is, why is Obama doing so well in the polls even after these negative stories have received so much media attention? And the answer is that the American people don’t care about them, and that’s why McCain isn’t putting more energy into driving these stories.

So I don’t think it’s harmful for us to talk about these stories in an honest way as we discuss how dishonest McCain is being or how moronic a news analyst is being. These stories don’t have any power left to hurt Obama, in my opinion. But I could be wrong.

As for media bias: We should compile a list of all the remarkably stupid things McCain has said in this campaign. Here are three examples that didn’t receive nearly enough media attention.

1. McCain’s claim that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was probably the first significant international crisis since the end of the Cold War. (Anyone recall September 11th, war in Agfhanistan, war in Iraq? Anyone?)

2. McCain suggesting that Iran was training members of Al Qaida and sending them into Iraq to kill Americans. (McCain levelled this explosive charge in public twice. How could he get something so important so wrong?)

3. McCain said the Sunni Awakening occured as a result of the so-called “surge” of military forces in Iraq, even though the Sunni Awakening occured before the surge.

All three of these “gaffes” should have raised big important questions about whether John McCain — now 6 years past retirement age — has any idea what’s going on in the world. But it appears McCain can say just about anything and get away with it because he was a POW. When did the presidency stop being an important job and start being a reward for coolness? (2000?)

Halperin says, “it would be hard for McCain given the way he says he’s going to run this campaign to do all this stuff without the door being opened… the style now, the tone of it is you can do anything you want…”

I’m not clear whether Halperin thinks these attacks would be legitimate – certainly he’s trying to maintain the appearance of objectivity. I think it’s unrealistic to say that McCain has nobly held his tongue up to this point. And by suggesting that Obama has somehow opened himself up to attack, is this necessarily indicative of the same media bias that you outline in this and previous posts? Is Halperin suggesting, or maybe just assuming, that Obama actually does have a giant target on his back that everyone has been too polite to point it out?

I hope I’m clear that I certainly don’t think that the attacks that Halperin enumerates (Rezko, Wright, etc.) are at all worthwhile. But, by simply commenting on them, am I a part of the pundit/blogosphere class responsible for their perpetuation?

I just got caught up on weekend posts and am a bit dizzy and overwhelmed at trying to parse all the different perspectives, on all the different topics, and trying to find one of my own that is sufficient to engage with. :-$