Scratching Obama's Teflon

"I've long argued that John McCain will have an easier time taking on Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has. This is not to say it will be a cake walk. However, the difference is that McCain will have a much easier time drawing a sharper contrast.

"Obama has essentially framed the Democratic primary debate in such a way as to ensure the only obvious contrasts are the ones that favor him . . .

"Of course, this will not work against McCain. Obama will be forced to defend his leftist ideology, such as wanting to socialize healthcare, precipitously withdrawing from Iraq, etc. And based on the early skirmishes the two candidates have had, it is clear that McCain gets under Obama's skin in a way that Hillary never did, or perhaps, never could."

Carpetbagger's Steve Benen complains about the lack of coverage of McCain accepting the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee:

"McCain hadn't just cozied up to a radical mega-church evangelist, he'd teamed up with a notorious anti-Catholic extremist . . .

"Louis Farrakhan had a few kind words to say about Barack Obama. In response, Obama repudiated Farrakhan, made no effort to reach out to him (formally or informally), and said he wanted nothing to do with the Nation of Islam leader. Nevertheless, campaign reporters covered Farrakhan's 'endorsement' with great enthusiasm, and Obama was pressed on the 'issue' at this week's debate.

"Which leads to an interesting contrast. While Obama repudiated Farrakhan, McCain dropped everything to appear alongside Hagee. While Obama made no effort to reach out to Farrakhan, McCain sought Hagee's support and said he was 'very honored' to accept it. While Obama said he wanted nothing to do with Farrakhan, McCain said he hoped to capitalize on Hagee's endorsement to curry favor with the evangelical community."

Firedog's Jane Hamsher adds that "Hagee was, if you'll remember, the guy who said that Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge for a gay pride parade."

What are they talking about? The New York Times gave the matter two whole paragraphs at the end of a story Saturday.

In that flap about an Obama aide allegedly assuring Canadian officials his man will go easy on NAFTA, CTV stands by the story:

"The Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago."

Sounds like a non-denial denial.

Obama always seems so cool, so unruffled by reporters, but Todd Spivak, who was writing for an Illinois paper three years ago, says the state lawmaker called and yelled at him over a story:

"The article began, 'It can be painful to hear Ivy League-bred Barack Obama talk jive.'

"Obama told me he doesn't speak jive, that he doesn't say the words 'homeboy' or 'peeps.'

"It seemed so silly; I thought for sure he was joking. He wasn't.

"He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

"I started to speak, and he shouted me down.

"He said he liked the other story I wrote.

"I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

"He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

"He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

"He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

"I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

"He said I should have called his cell phone.

"I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone because of his busier schedule.

"He said again that I should have called his cell phone."