Typical lazy reporter. So you’re expecting a politician to do the work for you?

But, Tapper says, holding Obama accountable is difficult because he speaks to reporters infrequently.

I can’t believe he said that with a straight face.

I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a good story based on something a politician said. It was usually based on long hours of document research at the courthouse. But due to a combination of time pressures, budget restraints and, of course, preening journalistic egos, it’s unlikely that you’ll see much of that in this race.

Obama’s trying to pull off a very delicate balancing act here. He’s trying to redefine the easy symbolism of politics (i.e. flag pins) that reporters lazily use as “character” shorthand and I both respect and applaud him for it.

I just don’t know if the time to do it is as a relative unknown during a presidential campaign. If he can pull it off, more power to him. It will serve us all in the long run.

As to the rest of this article, what absolute bullshit. The press once again embarrasses itself (if that’s even possible. I’m not sure it is). See, it’s not so much that they apply these standards to Clinton and not to Obama - it’s that they apply them to anyone at all.

For instance: Does anyone really care about Obama’s passing acquaintance with Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers? Probably not, since most people don’t even know who they are. Yes, the RW attack machine will spin it into a criminal conspiracy. But it will only attain legitimate status in the eyes of most voters when the corporate media treats it as a matter of great national gravity.

And so the voters will be taught to care. (And so on, and so on.) They will be reminded at every term that Obama associated with “dangerous radicals,” and now we understand why he refused to wear that flag pin.

Then it will all make sense, in that twisted sort of way we’ve grown to know and expect.