Running Against the Media

Does yesterday's Kerry endorsement help Obama?

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times: "The Kerry endorsement is very big big. It's a rejection by Kerry of his 2004 running mate, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"It is surgically timed. Kerry's nod comes as the South Carolina primary is heating up--the only state Edwards won in 2004 and his last gasp to keep his candidacy alive. Kerry may be very useful to help shore up Obama on what has been his chronic weakness this year--questions by voters about his experience. Kerry vouching for Obama means a lot. It is also a bit of a snub to Clinton. It also helps push the New Hampshire loss into memory."

Captain Ed couldn't disagree more:

"Why announce this in South Carolina, of all places? Wouldn't this have helped more three days ago in Manchester, New Hampshire? If Kerry had done it there and then, it would have had much more influence on his neighboring state than a Yankee coming to Charleston. This seems like vintage Kerry -- a day late and a dollar short.

"Barack Obama may appreciate the sentiment, but he's not likely to get much of a boost from this endorsement. Considering the stink still coming from his 2004 campaign, it's more likely to repel voters than to attract them."

Tom Edsall mentions the possibility of a "Tom Bradley" effect in New Hampshire's voting -- some whites overstating support for an African American candidate to pollsters -- and says:

"If race has become a factor, it will challenge a central premise of this year's primary election: that the historic movement behind Obama reflects an electorate that has become sufficiently color blind -- 54 years after Brown v. Board of Education-- to elect a presidential candidate who happens to be black."

Here's why I'm skeptical: A voter who doesn't like Obama for whatever reason can easily tell a pollster he or she supports Hillary without being deemed racist.

Among those who blew the New Hampshire prediction: Markos, who called a 45-26 Obama win.

Is Romney too unemotional? Rich Lowry (whose magazine is backing Mitt) thinks so:

"One lesson we've had from Iowa and New Hampshire is unorthodox moves -- while scorned by the pundits (including me) -- have worked this year, whether it was Huckabee's ad press conference or Hillary's crying. They are those spontaneous (or spontaneous-seeming) moments that humanize a candidate and give him or her a certain depth. Romney hasn't had one, and his trouble as a campaigner is that he doesn't quite seem capable of having one. Unless he does, he just may never catch on with enough voters to win."