The MSM likes to cover political races in this basic mode: Candidate A attacks Candidate B.

Doesn't matter if it's true or even remotely relevant. If a candidate attacks another candidate, that is "news." Don't have time for analysis since there needs to be a story about Britney Spears, a crime 1000 miles from where you live, or killer pantyhose.

What the MSM wants is after Candidate A attacks Candidate B is for Candidate B to attack Candidate A. But they are running into a dilemma. Candidate B isn't fighting back in the way the MSM wants.

As you may have guessed, Candidate B in this case is Barack Obama, and he is running for president of the United States. And he is basing his success on a strategy of not responding in the cheap, lowdown ways of years past.

The MSM loves Republicans more in part because Republicans are better at attacks than Democrats are. Republicans aren't beholden to the truth or ethics or things that would stop Democrats. Republicans are happy to play the MSM's game, and the MSM rewards them for their efforts.

But regardless of where you stand on Obama, you have to admire this twist on conventional presidential candidate strategy: no cheap attacks. Obama ran this same gamble with Hillary Clinton, the strongest presidential candidate not to win a party's nomination, and it worked. But Clinton isn't a Republican, and didn't have Karl Rove or anyone like him on the campaign's side. And if you think the media was on Obama's side in the primary, they aren't necessarily so in the general election.

So McCain has a huge advantage in news coverage. His baseless attacks eventually get found out to be without truth or merit [1]. The ads get more treatment on "news " shows than actually get played as ads, a tactic useful for the campaign with less money. But a lot of potential voters don't get to the analysis; all they hear are the attacks. And why would the news and McCain say something about Obama if it wasn't true? The fact that the MSM has done a poor job of showing who Obama is creates a situation where the attacks become "true" since this is the information some voters get.

Obama can't change the strategy nor should he do so. And despite a lot of things going well for the presumptive Democratic Party nominee (bad economy, Iraq, weak Republican candidate), the cards are stacked against Obama. The McCain campaign, clearly in desperation mode, will only fire off more ads and attacks. And the American people have shown us that what is easy to find is what they know when it comes to information.

One thing to watch is whether the McCain campaign, seeing that Obama isn't responding on their level, becomes more exasperated and tries something stupid. The fact that a few recent ads from McCain were found to be so untrue [2] is a sign of complete desperation, and that can be a good sign for Obama.

The MSM, with very little exception, won't do the fact-checking needed. The beauty for Republican candidates is that they know this, and use it to their advantage. But if a candidate wins the presidential race without stooping down to that level, perhaps it could change how the MSM covers races. If/when that happens, even the pundits might look up and say, "Maybe you can win a race by staying out of the gutter." And even if it doesn't, perhaps the American public will reward a candidate that rises to a higher level. Technorati Tags: Be-Elected [8] Chad Rubel [9] 2008 race [10] Barack Obama [11] John McCain [12] attack ads [13] Britney Spears [14] untrue ads [15]