and

Obama's Files and McCain's Smiles
Dear Stumped:

Why is the media unwilling to vet Obama as they would any other candidate? Isn't it bizarre that Obama gets almost no legitimate criticism from the major news sources (including The Post)? I'm a devoted Democrat who will certainly vote for Obama, and even I wonder what happened to the media's backbone.

Liz

Dear Liz,

I disagree with you. Barack Obama's candidacy took a big hit when the media zeroed in on his church and its controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's supporters felt the focus on Wright, and the guilt by association, was overblown. It wasn't -- it was part of the proper vetting of a lesser-known presidential candidate that you suggest has been missing.

Plenty of news articles and editorials, including some in this newspaper, have also raised legitimate questions about Obama's approach to Iraq, especially whether the candidate is willing to adjust his preconceived campaign-trail assessment of the war (and time horizons for an exit) to the realities on the ground over there.

And even with all its excessive hype, the media coverage of Obama's recent globe-trotting amounted to needed vetting. Obama touched down in seven countries without a faux pas, so the coverage was largely positive. It must be said that the potential downsides of the trip were always a bit overstated by the media and Obama's own clever spin masters. But you can be sure all those reporters traveling with him were hoping for a "gotcha" moment that would reveal the young senator's supposed naivete. It didn't happen. Obama didn't confuse Shiites with Sunnis in Iraq (as John McCain sometimes does), nor was he lectured by foreign leaders about his failure to understand the complexities of the world. On the contrary, every foreign leader -- including Iraq's -- appeared willing and eager to work with the man in coming years, which is what made the trip such a glaring success.