Reading Between the Lines

The ad in question.

In the world of journalism, sometimes the story isn't in the nut graph. A small comment can illustrate a big point when the lens is zoomed in properly.

For example, one of today's major stories is that Obama is running an ad connecting a supposed coincidence between GOP strategist Ralph Reed not being called to testify in Jack Abramhoff's case and the fact that Reed is now raising money for McCain. (McCain oversaw the Abramhoff case.)

But the real story is this tidbit:

"Obama aired about 10,000 spots last week, including 9,000 against McCain, according to Evan Tracey, who tracks political ads as head of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group."

Apparently change involves flooding airwaves with 10,000 ads in one week, with 90 percent of the ads focused on McCain.

The man who emphasized staying above the muck against Hillary in the primary has completely reversed field in about two months.

So much for change.

Now which story was more interesting?