NYT THURSDAY: Obama aides increasingly limiting access for reporters; controlling settings Obama is photographed or filmed... Developing...

This should come as a surprise to no one. It happens in every campaign for president. The last thing campaigns want to do is let the media drive the message. Campaigns do everything in their power to spin the message their way. And this means controlling access.

As for controlled settings; that's a right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Rove took managing campaign events to new heights -- creating the best possible environment for his client to shine. From the audience to the theme to the setting, nearly everything is vetted through a very narrow prism. Most "products" are sold in such a manner. If you want to accentuate that best elements of your product, then you need to show them in their best light. And you don’t want others defining you – that’s the job of the campaign.

Read “The Making of a President” series by Theodore H. White. His series of books do an excellent job explaining the process of modern presidential campaign image making.

Yeah - I don't like it either.

"As for controlled settings; that's a right out of the Karl Rove playbook."


So much for change. That didn't last long.

Right. That's why it bugs me.

But I fail to see how this is not an issue that is worthy of being discussed in the hope for changing it. I mean, according to Deane, anything that anyone does for any reason should not be responded to, if it is offensive. While quite low on my offensiveness-scale, it should be taken into consideration.

There. I took it into consideration.

NOW can we want someone to try harder? Or is it just all for not because someone used the word " offensive " about it?

I have no problem with it, because what will change are the policy decisions, and that's what I care about.

If I were the Democrat nominee, and I were ahead in the polls, that's exactly what I'd do. It makes sense. Lay low. Less chance for slips of the tongue or bad imagery.

It's a Presidential campaign. They have nothing to do with transparency, honesty, or access. They have everything to do with winning the November election.

Both sides want to win, but when it comes to transparency and honesty, McCain loses in a landslide.

Anyone expecting transparency and honesty in a Presidential election is a fool.

Except for the first two Presidential elections won by George Washington, the rules for Presidential elections have been subterfuge, lying, scandalous attacks, dishonesty, coverups.

You know what I'm talking about- it's called politics. Let's not kid ourselves. It is how the game is played.

Believe me, I'm not kidding myself. But when comparing McCain vs Obama, McCain gets beat pretty bad on honesty and transparency.

"Or is it just all for not because someone used the word " offensive " about it?"

GRAMMAR POLICE: The phrase is "all for naught", meaning "all for nothing"

Sorry CJ...please continue.

I thought that was the correct spelling of that word. My mistake.

That's TWO now;

Spelling Rediculous with an " e " and now this one. Dang it. That's like twice in two years I have been wrong.

Thanks for the correction. It's a term I use often and it makes me look dumbererish.

"Except for the first two Presidential elections won by George Washington, the rules for Presidential elections have been subterfuge, lying, scandalous attacks, dishonesty, coverups."

Apparently the first election wasn't on the up and up either.

"It's a term I use often and it makes me look dumbererish."

Better to LOOK dumbererish than to actually BE dumbererish!

That's like twice in two years I have been wrong.

I thought I was wrong once.....But I was wrong!

This is happening only because Obama is now looking to win the Presidency. There are enough interests aligned against that happening that security is a valid concern.

This is our government and Obama going through their due diligence, nothing more, nothing less.

Given all the cracks about him being shot, can we expect anything less?

" This is happening only because Obama is now looking to win the Presidency. There are enough interests aligned against that happening that security is a valid concern. "

And it's happening because he looks funny in a helmet. Not as funny as I would look in a helmet. But funny still. I can deal with him looking funny in a helmet. Others use " How does he look in a helmet? " as criteria with which to base their vote.

But those people have to wear helmets ALL DAY and are ONLY allowed to ride bicycles as far as the bus stop.

"Except for the first two Presidential elections won by George Washington, the rules for Presidential elections have been subterfuge, lying, scandalous attacks, dishonesty, coverups."

I guess that explains how George W. Bush cheated in 2000 and was eventually appointed president. Then he and Karl Rove rigged the 2004 debacle.

Thanks for pointing that out Wobboh.

My pleasure.