Winter's Picks

  So says Der Spiegel, the German magazine, which says the American people are the ones losing out. Instead of focusing on the issues, the media goes after Pastorgate, Snipergate and Mistressgate.

  Quote: According to a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, over 60 percent of election coverage by the US media has been focused on campaign strategies, tactics or personalities -- but not on actual political content.

Reporters focused the most attention on such pressing questions as whether Barack Obama was wearing an American flag lapel pin, whether John McCain had a mistress eight years ago or whether former first lady Hillary Clinton was incorrectly recalling her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

  What do you think? Is the media spending too much top on what the candidates are doing/saying and not enough on where they stand on the issues?

  Here's an interesting "what-if" scenario - could Hillary Clinton demand the vice presidential spot at the Democratic National Convention and could Barack Obama stop her.

  This article says she could not only demand it, but get it. And there's nothing Obama could do.

  Obama will go into the convention with the most pledged delegates, and the way it looks, he'll win the majority of superdelegates. But when it comes time to vote for the vice presidential nominee, Clinton could ask the superdelegates to support her.

  A big number of these, according to the article by Bob Beckel, owe their political careers to the Clintons. While they may go with Obama for president, they simply won't deny the Clintons twice. 

  Beckel managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign and is a senior political analist for Fox News.

  Republican John McCain layed out his vision of the accomplishments he hopes to obtain by the end of his first presidential term - if elected.

  It was interesting, in that it was a speech in the past tense, one looking back.

  What did he see? Simple flat tax, captured or dead Osama bin Laden, major government spending reductions through his veto, temporary worker program, weekly newsconferences, and a British-style Q&A with Congress.

  Everyone is reading between the lines, trying to dissect exactly whether President Bush took a dig at Barack Obama during a speech in Israel.

  The quote in question - before Israel's legislative body: Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."We have heard this foolish delusion before."

  Obama shot back, saying in part: "Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

  The White House pointed out that Bush has made similar comments before, and refered to many throughout history. Bush even quoted a senator during WW II. Yet Democrats are blasting the statements, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying they were "beneath the dignity of the office."

  Here's a pretty good recap of the he said, he said, she said, they said, whomever said here. You can also see a video of Bush's remarks there.

  So, what do you think? Is everyone getting a little testy, political gamemanship or mountains out of molehills?

  Republican John McCain is set to give a "past-tense" speech today on what all he hopes to have accomplished in his first term if elected president.

  We'll update later in the day on the speech, but for now, here's the TV ad that goes with it.