All in the Family

Betsy's Page sees a stark contrast:

"It is clear that Michelle Obama is receiving better press than the two Republican spouses. Since I don't know any of these women, it could be well-deserved coverage. Mrs. Obama represents everything that conservatives admire - someone who worked hard to achieve what she has achieved as a graduate of a top law school, successful lawyer, and an apparently devoted wife and mother.

"Mrs. Thompson has not been well-known before. The articles that talked about her as a 'trophy wife' were demeaning and uninformative. The Washington Post piece tells us a lot of new information and most of it is not very positive. They go into her life living with a guy in Tennessee and the debts that she left behind there. I'd seen her referred to as a successful and smart GOP operative, but it seems, from this article, that her rise in GOP circles coincided with her romance with Fred Thompson . . .

"The Thompson campaign should have been ready for such a piece and have been out in front of the media instead of depending on 'friend of Jeri' type quotes to establish her image with the American people. They should recognize that she is an unknown to the American public. If the only glimpses we have of her are photos of her in an evening dress and negative reports in the media, she's going to get a negative image that she may never turn around. They could have put her out there for some soft interviews early on so that we know more about her and get to hear her own voice before the political press gets hold of her."

A new USA Today poll: Hillary over Obama, 48 to 26. Rudy over Fred Thompson, 33 to 21, with McCain at 16 and Romney at 8.

At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan reports from the Kos convention on the contrasting styles of the two Democratic front-runners:

"As you might expect, Hillary is exceedingly well prepared on the stump. She's shown it in the debates, and it's even more evident when she's in a room fielding questions across a broad array of issues. Her knowledge of certain topics is so detailed, in fact, that her wonkishness often crosses the line from being impressive to mind-numbingly boring.

"In her break out session, for example, Clinton took the first question on No Child Left Behind and gave a 15-minute disquisition on the merits of the educational growth model which, while it may have left NEA members in a state of sheer ecstasy, would leave most voters contemplating the relative merits of spending time in a dentist's chair.

"But while Hillary does not leave the room filled with warmth, she does leave a favorable impression as someone who is smart, disciplined, has a three-point plan for everything and generally knows what the heck she is talking about.

"Obama is equally impressive, though in a distinctly different way. Whereas Hillary responds by ticking off details with the authority of a schoolmarm, Obama comes across as thoughtful -- often conspicuously so, pausing even in the middle of an answer to gather his thoughts or offer some aside. This too has been evident in the debates, usually to Obama's detriment. He is much more well equipped, both as a matter of style and substance, to speak in longer form before live crowds. And though Obama is nearly as adept at talking policy as Clinton, it's not his strength."

At the same debate, Hillary parried Edwards by saying she would not pledge to refuse money from Washington lobbyists because they also represent good causes. Garance Franke-Ruta is puzzled:

"It's true that there are a lot of lobbyists for groups that the Democrats support. Educators, nurses, and so on all do have lobbyists. But when people talk about Washington lobbyists, and the problem with Washington lobbyists, that's not who they are talking about. Clinton knows that. Why, then, defend lobbyists? Her answer on this issue was among the most baffling she has given so far this campaign, because a simple side-stepping cop-out of an answer would have seemed less incredible.