At one point, the Times actually quotes Bush strategist Matthew Dowd saying it was "a distinct possibility" the president would emerge from Labor Day with a lead in the polls. This is news? This is front-page news? Given the obvious fact that the race remains so close and Republicans held their convention second, which meant they'd likely enjoy a bump in the polls on the eve of Labor Day, any serious election analyst had to assume Bush might enjoy a lead come Labor Day.
So the question remains, why did the Times run a Page One story speculating about the effects of the Republican Convention, while quoting optimistic Republican strategists, if that same story wasn't worth covering coming out of Boston?
More ...
http://salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html"It's not over 'till Arnold gropes the fat lady" —Bill Press, on MSNBC
Seating now available in the Smoking Section:
Politics, humor, death and the Devil -
http://www.eDiablo.com