By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2008; 9:44 AM

I've said many times that Barack Obama has gotten easy treatment from the news media, although that has changed a bit in recent weeks, particularly since the Rev. Jeremiah Wright became a household name, at least in households that watch plenty of cable.

In fact, there's a bit of a narrative about Obama as an elitist starting to take hold in the media, and that could prove troublesome for him. More on that in a moment.

Now one prominent Republican and a key Democrat are pushing the media-love-Barack line, perhaps for their own purposes. That takes the question out of the realm of armchair media critics and directly into the political crossfire.

The architect of the GOP criticism is none other than Karl Rove, a John McCain booster and maxed-out donor, in his new role as Fox News pundit. This comes from a rather revealing GQ interview done by Lisa de Paulo:

" Do you think Obama's gotten a free ride from the press? Yes.

" How so? I don't think they hold him to the same standards. You know, look, his Web site is full of all kinds of proposals written by academics galore. But he's not required to defend them. He's not required to explain what it is he wants to do. Now I think that's changing. I think, when you have an editorial in USA Today that says, in essence, Where's the beef, what's the substance? When reporters start asking him tough questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko--you know, what was the value of the lot? What was the price that you paid? How many fund-raisers did he do for you? How much money did he raise at those fund-raisers? When they start asking him those questions, then it starts to change. I mean, the kind of questions that have been routinely asked of other candidates--about their background and associations and involvements--have only recently begun to be asked of him.

" I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama. Off the record?

" Please don't go off the record. Off the record . . . [Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]

" Damn! Now say that on the record. No. Nope. Nope. Nope.

" Let's try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him. Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uh--she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has."

Off the record, I'd love to know what he said.

But we get a hint of Rove's feelings when he says Obama, in his book, "wrote that 'people like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, and Karl Rove say we are a Christian nation.' And I did not say that. I confronted him about it. At the White House.

" And what did he say? Well, first he denied that I was in the book! And then he denied that it said that I said that it was a Christian nation. And then when I pulled out the thing [he had a copy of the offensive page with him] and showed it to him, he sort of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah- blah-blah. And I thought, That's who he is."

The other blast comes from Ed Rendell, which is less than shocking since the Pennsylvania governor is a big-time Hillary Clinton backer. Time's Karen Tumulty picks up on the sharp elbows thrown by the guv:

"In a recent appearance on Fox News--not exactly considered friendly territory for the Democrats--he congratulated the network for having done 'the fairest job [and] remained the most objective of all the cable networks.' In an interview with me, the governor was again in media-critic mode. 'It took Saturday Night Live to bring some fairness to this election,' Rendell said, referring to the show's now famous skit lampooning the media's crush on Obama. 'It's stunning. Does Keith Olbermann get checks from the Obama campaign?' "

Could Rendell soon be named Worst Person in the World?

Now to the question of the Obama image. Ever since his unfortunate bowling outing (shouldn't he have practiced beforehand, like debate prep?), there's been a tone that he just can't relate to working-class folks. Now this is potentially dangerous. The media once mocked George H.W. Bush for proclaiming his love for pork rinds and asking for "a splash more coffee" at a New Hampshire truck stop. Could Obama be similarly portrayed as not down with da people, despite his roots as a Chicago community organizer?

Maureen Dowd floated this notion the other day: "Keeping his tie firmly in place, he genteelly sipped his pint of Yuengling beer at Sharky's sports cafe in Latrobe and bowled badly in Altoona . . . At the Wilbur chocolate shop in Lititz Monday, he spent most of his time skittering away from chocolate goodies, as though he were a starlet obsessing on a svelte waistline."

How dare he not chow down?

Salon's Walter Shapiro, though, points out one of Obama's virtues:

"Obama . . . shares a good-government reformist zeal with Dukakis and may also be hobbled with an analogous problem in winning over lunch-bucket Democrats. But the similarities end there, since Obama may be the least likely candidate to fall for an out-of-character stunt like riding in a tank looking ridiculous. For Obama possesses something that most presidential Democrats (aside from Bill Clinton) have lacked for the last three decades -- a sense of ease and comfort with himself.

"It is not just the Republican attack machine that created the image of Democratic candidates camouflaging their inner being at the behest of their campaign consultants. From Walter Mondale playing down his liberal instincts in 1984 to Al Gore, who, in reality, did . . . go through a phony phase in the 2000 campaign of wearing earth tones, the Democrats often got caught by their lack of authenticity. (Out of a sense of mercy, we will not even mention the 2004 John Kerry campaign.) It is this trap that Hillary Clinton has fallen into with her exaggerated claims of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

"But Obama -- even when he gives way to ill-conceived gimmicks like his gutter-ball bowling misadventure -- has that rare ability to laugh it off with conviction."

Still, Obama seems to have learned from his food faux pas, if this Philadelphia Daily News piece is any indication:

"What, no whiz?

"Sen. Barack Obama sampled $100 ham, but didn't chow down on a cheesesteak during a visit to the Italian Market yesterday.

"During a half-hour tour of the market, Obama sampled wares at Claudio Specialty Food and DiBruno Brothers - where he noshed on a Spanish ham that retails for $99.99 a pound.

"Staff at DiBruno's told him the ham only recently became available because it was previously barred by the FDA. 'All I know is it tastes good,' Obama said. As good as whiz with onions?

"In fact, neither Obama nor Sen. Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made the traditional stop at South Philly cheesesteak establishments Pat's or Geno's."

In a similar vein, some cable shows kept playing video of Obama dissing a man ("You're wearing me out, brother") who kept badgering him for a photo. Says Ann Althouse: "Was it that guy's goal to [tick] Obama off and get him looking bad on camera? I'd say Obama kept his cool and handled it well, but I'm sure there will be people who will say this is Obama losing his cool. To that, I'd say: If this is Obama losing his cool, Obama is very cool. Perhaps a better question is whether Obama is too cool -- too bland and unemotional to enthuse us."

Cool or not, is Obama starting to dip?

"Senator Barack Obama's support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month -- particularly among men and upper-income voters -- as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

"Mr. Obama's favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month in which he has come under withering attack from Mrs. Clinton and has had to respond to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church's pulpit in Chicago."

The survey shows Obama beating McCain 47 to 42 (down from a 12-point margin), and Hillary besting the Arizonan 48 to 43.

But look at this from the CBS write-up: "Seventy percent say Obama shares Americans' values, 60 percent say Clinton does and 66 percent say the same for McCain."

And in another tally, the L.A. Times says Hillary's lead among the supers has dwindled from 106 to 30:

"Democratic Party officials and insiders known as superdelegates are jumping to Barack Obama's camp or signaling that's where they are headed, including such prominent figures as former President Jimmy Carter. Some superdelegates who back Clinton have begun laying out scenarios under which they would abandon her for Obama.

" 'My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama,' Carter told a Nigerian newspaper during a visit to Africa. 'As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess.' "

McCain will have something to say about how Obama is perceived, in the opinion of Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

"The polling, and the developing strategy, hinges on McCain's convincing those Obama-loving independents that McCain is known commodity who embodies change and that Obama's story is just that -- a story and his rhetoric is mere words. Obama may run on his biography, but McCain will run as biography; he is who he says he is; you know him; you trust him; and you're comfortable with him. McCain is an open book; Obama is . . . well, more of a mystery.

"There's a deeper, more holistic messaging attempt at work. McCain often likes to say that the country owes him nothing, but McCain owes the country everything. By contrast, McCain advisers believe that Obama's core message is arrogance: America has problems, and only Obama can fix them; he deserves the presidency."

As for the McCain persona, National Review's Jim Geraghty, citing a report in The Hill that a second McCain son may be fighting in Iraq by fall, says:

"Go ahead, lefty bloggers. Call the man a crazed warmonger . . . Try to tell the American people that he would push for a dangerous policy that he didn't really believe in while his sons are in harm's way. See how that plays with the electorate at large."

David Brody:

"To think that Evangelicals will just head to the polls and choose McCain as the lesser of two evils is not only a foolhardy strategy, it could cost him the election.

"Look, McCain has a bill of goods to sell to social conservatives. I won't list all of that here but campaign finance reform and his support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research hurt him with Evangelicals but he may also have a perception problem. John McCain doesn't come off as the warmest guy in the world. Plus, throw in the 'agents of intolerance' remark made in 2000 which some have not forgotten and you have a recipe for apathy. It may not hurt him as much if Hillary Clinton is the nominee but running against Barack Obama will be different. Obama is seen as a dynamic, smiling presence that isn't afraid to talk about his faith."

In Round 79, a Clinton associate counters the story that Hillary told Bill Richardson that Obama can't win by counterpunching with Mark Halperin: "Bill Richardson is clearly embarrassed that he broke his promise to them. He should come out and tell the truth and admit that he told both Clintons that Obama wasn't ready and can't win."

The White House plays a little gotcha with the NYT:

"Today, the New York Times criticized President Bush for failing to generate headlines for his visit to Novadebt counseling center in Freehold, N.J. to meet with mortgage counselors and discuss the housing market, asserting 'the papers were awash with the news that Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania had endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.' The 'newspaper of record' further claims 'Mr. Bush has sometimes seemed invisible during the housing and credit crunch.' (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, 'In Economic Drama, Bush Is Largely Offstage,' The New York Times, 4/3/08).

"The New York Times neglects to mention that it failed to send a reporter to cover the President's housing event in Freehold, N.J. -- a town inside its own circulation area."

Rupert Murdoch spoke at Georgetown the other day, and provided a good bit of fodder. His own WSJ: "News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch said Wednesday that acquiring Long Island's Newsday newspaper would benefit his New York Post, but acknowledged that U.S. antitrust officials might seek to block the acquisition."

Slate's Jack Shafer, a vociferous critic: "While talking about political bias and the news, he said: 'The Washington Post [company] has a site called Slate, and the guy who runs that calls me the Antichrist.'

"Jacob Weisberg, the guy who runs Slate, has never called Murdoch the Antichrist, according to Nexis. Nor have I. Perhaps he was confusing Weisberg with the guy who runs the New York Times? A September 2007 Vanity Fair piece by Michael Wolff reported that Times Executive Editor Bill Keller once 'angrily confronted' Murdoch lieutenant Gary Ginsberg and said, 'How can you work for the Antichrist?'

"Keller says he didn't 'confront' the Murdoch employee, whom he had known for a while. And he wasn't angry. 'I greeted Gary, smilingly, with something like, 'So I gather you've gone to work for the Antichrist.' It was a joke,' Keller writes via e-mail. 'Maybe it's true, as someone said, that there's no such thing as a joke. But it was a joke.' "

Fishbowl DC:

"It's very hard to be neutral. People laugh at us because we call ourselves 'Fair and Balanced.' Fact is, CNN, who's always been extremely liberal, never had a Republican or conservative voice on it. The only difference is that we have equal voices on both sides but that seems to have upset a lot of liberals . . . The more voices the better."

Without getting drawn into a big Fox vs. CNN debate, what does Rupert mean, never had a conservative voice? Wasn't Robert Novak a mainstay at CNN for 25 years? How about Pat Buchanan? Weren't shows like "Crossfire" predicated on left-right pairings? (Mary Matalin, John Sununu or Tucker Carlson vs. Mike Kinsley, Bill Press and other liberals?) Of course, Murdoch excels at sticking it to the competition.

As for his longtime rival, CNN founder Ted Turner, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution heats things up with some comments he made to Charlie Rose:

"Failure to address global warming will have us all dead or eating each other by mid-century.

"So says Ted Turner, the restaurateur, environmentalist and former media mogul whose controversial comments have earned him the nickname 'Mouth of the South.' " Sample comment: "Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."

An uplifting guy, that Ted.