Remember back in 2004 when George Bush trounced John Kerry in the debates? The left saw a funny shape under Bush's jacket and immediately decided Bush must have had answered piped to an earpiece from Karl Rove. That was the only way he could have done so well. [Leon points out that this is actually the one debate where Bush flopped. Oh well, the more things change . . . ]
A variation on that happened over the weekend. Andrea Mitchell and NBC are in full cover mode for the Obama campaign to undo Obama's self-inflicted damage. Hours after bloggers at DailyKos suggested McCain did so well because he had advanced knowledge of the questions, Andrea Mitchell and NBC picked up the story. This time, the story did not come from the Kos Kids. It came from the Obama campaign.
what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.
She added that McCain "seemed so well prepared." Well, duh. When you answer the question "when does life begin" with "at conception" as opposed to "that's above my pay grade," you will seem a bit more prepared.
For it's part, the McCain camp is now protesting Mitchell's coverage as lacking objectivity. Mitchell did pass on the claim without anything more than amazement at how well prepared McCain seemed.
Let's not forget that Mitchell also, uncritically, passed on the Obama rumor that McCain sabotaged Obama's trip to see the troops in Germany.
It's not just Andrea Mithcell though.
The media is in full cover mode to help out Barack Obama over his performance at Saddleback. The New York Times too is pushing the "McCain knew the questions" story. It is the only way they can explain how well McCain did and how poorly Obama did.
Here, though, ladies and gentlemen, is an alternate theory.
McCain did well because he understands the issues close to the hearts of the people at Saddleback. Obama did poorly because he does not understand those issues and only built up the "I'm a man of faith" narrative to hide that fact.
The media, unchurched as it is, cannot relate. They see Obama and hear his powerful rhetoric and they equate powerful rhetoric with church. They see Obama attending Trinity Church and equate that with actually being churched.
Friends, in this day and age, there is generally a big difference between those in the secular world who call themselves Christians and those who actually follow Christ.
Obama may call himself a Christian, but his inability to relate at Saddleback is another indicator that he is not actually a follower of Christ. It is an unpleasant truth that we need to get used to. The media is incapable of processing that data point. The only way they can get around it is to presume that McCain lied, not that the Obama narrative is a lie.
Maybe the media should stop treating Obama's talking points as gospel.