The big three networks — and their big three evening news anchors — are all over Barack Obama’s trip to the Middle East. Extensive coverage is planned, interviews will be touted, and ABC, NBC and CBS are sure to document his every more.

So is this attention on his trip just more evidence that the media plays favorites with Obama, as some have argued? (Who can forget the SNL skit?)

One evening news anchor, CBS’ Katie Couric,  made her feelings on the subject quite clear in a talk with TV critics. She believes there are “a number of really critical questions” Obama needs to answer about foreign policy.

“It’s not as if it’s going to be,  you know, ‘How do you like the weather in Jordan, Senator?’”

Here’s more on her take:

I think we’ve made a very conscious effort to be fair about how much attention we pay to each campaign and in the primary process as well.  I know there’s been a lot of discussion about Barack Obama’s upcoming trip and how much media attention it will receive, but I think editorially if you look at the fact that there have been questions about his foreign policy expertise and about his national security experience, prompted largely, quite 
frankly, by his Republican critics, and the fact that Iraq remains front and center in terms of how the United States may or may not extricate itself from that theater, then this is a really important trip newswise and editorially in terms of really being able to pin down Barack Obama on his foreign policy vision, if you will.

So much for the weather question.

 (Photo: Reuters)

Sort of like Walter Mondale’s 1984 political slogan, “Where’s the Beef?,” the 2008 political campaign is all about pork- pork barrelling, that is.

John McCain’s campaign last week launched a video game on Facebook called “Pork Invaders,” a spoof on the 1978 arcade favorite “Space Invaders” that takes aim at pork barrelling, or government spending that aims to satisfy a group of voters in exchange for their political support. 

In the game, players use arrow keys to shift a McCain logo across the screen to shoot red “vetoes” at a herd of pigs looming above.  But watch out, the pigs are ready to aim at and, well, soil, the Arizona Senator’s logo.  The more pigs players “veto,” the larger the amount of dollars saved in the budget. 

The low-tech game is a “unique way to get the Senator’s message out there about pork barrelling and earmarks,” according to Rick Gorka, a spokesman for the McCain campaign.  

Facebook users can add the video game application to their profiles.  This is one of the first online strategies McCain’s campaign has used on Facebook, a social online network popular with the young voters who have flocked to support McCain’s rival, Democrat Barack Obama.

“Folks on Facebook tend to get news in non-traditional means, whereas our grandparents would sit down and watch the news with Tom Brokaw,” said Gorka.  “Facebook is yet one avenue we can use to target voters in this election.”  

But will the game really be popular with young voters?  The majority of high school and college-aged Facebook users weren’t even born back when “Space Invaders” was popular and could miss the humor of the campaign’s spoof. 

McCain’s campaign describes the game as “very popular” with users, yet it’s only drawn 433 daily active users out of the 80 million on Facebook.  Obama doesn’t have his own video game (for now), but he still overwhelmingly leads McCain in terms of pledged Facebook supporters.  Over a million Facebook users list themselves as Obama fans, easily trumping McCain’s tally of 152, 619 supporters. 

– Posted by Jennifer Martinez

Nationally syndicated columnist and Huffingtonpost.com co-founder/editor-in-chief Arianna Huffington may not have been a personal supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party nomination (HuffPost didn’t endorse a candidate), but she has kind words for the New York senator and former first lady all the same.

I met Arianna in New York on Tuesday to ask her what she, as the author of a book about women conquering their fears, thought about Clinton’s failure to secure the nomination and her political future.

Here’s what she said about…

Supporting Obama:

Since this is an election where we are clear that it’s in the best interests of the country that (Arizona Republican Senator) John McCain is not president , and we have seen that Obama has a much better chance of defeating John McCain, it’s a very clear choice. (With Obama) there’s no equivocation. It’s the future, getting out of Iraq. It’s a dramatically different take on the economy. It’s a clear break with the past, which the country’s really longing for.

Drawbacks to Clinton:

The two main drawbacks were that she did vote to authorize the war, so it’s much harder to oppose the war as categorically as Obama can oppose it, given that he has been against it from 2002… Given now that a vast majority of the American people know the war was wrong, if you knew that from the begining, you’d have a real clear advantage.

On the disappointment of a woman not getting a major party nomination:

Actually you know, I found her speech on Saturday so incredibly important for women because I have written as you know for my “Fearless” book a lot about how a lot of women have held (themselves) back because of the fear of failure. That has been the greatest fear in women. I mean, men have it too, but women, we have it in a much more intense way.

She failed in her immediate goal of winning the nomination, but this was in a way a historic triumph for women, because the question, “Can a woman be commander-in-chief?” will never be asked again. Can a woman run a great campaign, raise money and get millions of votes? All these questions have now been answered, thanks to her race. As a mother of two teenaged daughters, I’m constantly saying to them, always take the risk, go for your dreams. If you fail, it doesn’t matter. It’s like there is nobody who has succeeded in life who has not failed along the way. (Her speech) was a concession speech but at the same time it was a triumphant speech. I thought it was an incredibly moving, powerful moment for the country and especially for women.

And would she support Hillary in 2012 if she ran again, and the circumstances were right?

Sure. Absolutely.

I also asked why it should be that a woman in the United States still hasn’t had a clear shot at becoming a head of state when countries like India, Indonesia, Germany, Chile and Pakistan have pulled it off.

Her answer:

It has more to do with the women who have run… I don’t think there is more sexism here than there is in India, for example. If you look at the women who run, there isn’t anyone you’d say, “yes, if that person wasn’t a woman, they’d absolutely have to be president.”

(Photo: Reuters)

The wireless industry’s clout attracted former U.S. presidents last year, but this year it was just enough to lure the former wannabes.

This year’s headline keynote speakers at the CTIA annual industry showcase were former presidential candidates John Edwards and Fred Thompson? Last year the wireless show nabbed Former actual Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as keynote speakers.

After lamenting lost chances and nodding to the increasing importance of technology in campaigns, both politicians then got busy criticizing how the mainstream media has handled the presidential campaign so far.

Edwards spent a good deal of his keynote discussing how voters, despite wall to wall coverage of the campaign, seemed largely ignorant of  the remaining hopefuls’ John McCain (R), Barack Obama (D) and Hillary Clinton (D) differing approaches to issues such as global warming, national security or health care.

“What you’d expect is a more informed electorate,” said Edwards in answer a question about the impact of 24-hour media  coverage of the campaigns.
“Unfortunately that’s not the case,” he said during the questions session after his keynote.

“There is so much focus on the superficial. The American people deserve better. You deserve to be better informed than that,” said Edwards before refusing to reveal who he would vote for and saying that he would not consider a nomination for vice-president.

Thompson was equally contemptuous of the mainstream media campaign coverage. 
“There’s nothing more dangerous than a writer or a television personality with dead airtime he’s got to fill up,” said the former actor.

“Controversy is the name of the game and sometimes it’s generated when it’s not really there,” he said of coverage of the campaign so far.  “We’re seeing it in these campaigns, the good side and the bad side of these new ways to communicate,” said Thompson.

In his speech he referred  to the double-edged sword of blogs and services like Twitter, which lets users send updates to a large group of people.

However, neither seemed to blame the media for their failure to win nominations for the top job. Thompson blamed his failure on his taking advice that he should “be himself.”  Edwards said, “If some of you voted for me it wasn’t enough of you.”

(Photo: Sinead Carew / John Edwards (top); Fred Thompson (bottom)