The slavish and religious reverence given to Barack Obama by much of the press seems to have backfired. The election was supposed to be won by comparing the Republican candidate to Bush, but the media's preoccupation with Obama has made the election all about him.

David Brooks is typical of many in the media when he writes about Obama. Even bad news is good news. Of interest however, is that the bad news is all Obama, and the good news is all Obama.

Brooks writes that the Democratic candidate never has been fully engaged with anything he has done, or with the people he has done it with. This sounds like a serious problem, but you would think so only if you weren't an Obama worshipper.

According to Brooks, being disengaged results from a unique quality that is something akin to brilliance. "This ability to stand apart ?" is an asset. It gives Obama the skills to be an observer, but not just any observer. It gives Obama "powers of observation." And not just any powers, but "fantastic powers of observation." Oh yes, along with "his skills as a writer and thinker."

Which, in all honesty, seem profound as long as his writers have had time to intervene.

Except for the embarrassing adoration, there is nothing new here. In any given campaign, the candidate the media likes always becomes very intelligent. John Kerry and Al Gore were so bright that it actually hurt their campaigns, which brings us to John Edwards.

It seems that Edwards had an affair with a woman who has moved into a $3 million house. She has a child that Edwards claims belongs to one of his staff, who just moved into a $4 million dollar house.

Having an affair is almost a requirement for modern politicians who are not conservative (as Sen. Harkin, D-Iowa, explained in an earlier era, everyone does it, and everyone lies about it), so there is nothing of interest here, unless you have a wide stance.

And that is exactly the way this story was handled. Some papers told their writers that they could not even mention the Edwards affair. The only problem was that he was still being considered by some as a possible vice president, and Edwards had made his wife's breast cancer an issue in his second campaign for the Presidency of the United States.

When the "news" finally was reported by the New York Times and the Washington Post, the story began, "Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said ?." Not to worry, the fact that he was a Democrat was finally mentioned in paragraph three, and then never mentioned again.

The first line of the story if it involved someone from the party the media does not like would have said, "Former Republican Senator from North Carolina John Edwards said."

Paul Krugman weighed in last Sunday and opined that the GOP was "stupid." This is something that even the most ardent supporters of Republicanism already know, but why did Krugman suddenly come to this revelation?

It seems that the members of the GOP want the U.S. to drill for oil. Why is this stupid? Allow me to count the ways according to media wisdom.

First, it will take years before we see any new oil from new drilling, so it is "stupid" to drill now. This is simply a Democratic talking point invented after the party was found with its economic pants down. Krugman should be ashamed for drinking this Kool-Aid.

This is very much like saying that there is no reason for a freshman to go to college because it will be years before she gets a degree.

Second, the GOP is stupid to suggest drilling because it won't change the price of oil when it does come in. What?

As a cure for this ignorance, I bet our excellent economic profs would let Paul sit in on a few classes.

Third, drilling won't immediately change the price of gasoline. Part of the present price increase is due to speculation about how much oil will be available in the future. Changing that equation will change the price of gasoline now.

Fourth, and this is the best reason of all, Krugman and his friends in the media think everyone and anyone who disagrees with them is "stupid."