I receive dozens of nutty emails from P.R. people every day. But the one that hit my inbox at 11:18 this morning has to be the nuttiest. I won't name names or anything. I'll just let the pitch speak for itself.

Washington, D.C.; September 23, 2008...A strategically scented presidential campaign, incorporating calculated aromas in event venues, signs and merchandise, could turn the tide in the current presidential race. With polls indicating the election is extremely close, the result could come down to just a few percentage points separating Senators John McCain and Barack Obama...

There is a multitude of research proving that scent highly influences a person's perception of products and people. Studies show that scent can significantly alter the perception of age, weight, attractiveness, and reliability of a person...

Endorphin branding is the use of scent as a means of imprinting a highly emotional, positive experience in tandem with a targeted signature scent, which can be reintroduced at a later time to trigger and recreate the desired response. This strategy should be implemented at political events, which are positively charged environments ripe for this type of scent branding.

This presidential election has already seen historic, innovative campaign efforts, particularly Senator Obama's use of the Internet to raise funds and communicate his messages. A multi-faceted, scented campaign could provide the edge one of these candidates needs to help gain victory in November.

Could it now? And here I thought the election was all about turnout and economic messaging.

All kidding aside--or most kidding aside--I'd love to hear your picks for each candidate's "targeted individual scent." Should McCain deploy a manly musk? Or is the smell of mothballs and Ben-Gay more fitting? Would a Polynesian aroma--say, Plumeria flowers--prove too "exotic" for Obama? Perhaps he should stick with apple pie instead...

Who "nose." This could be the future of political marketing. 

I'll highlight the best response in this space. If there are any.

I. The Onion's latest "War for the White House" video. Personally, I think that of the "430 crucial voting blocs" identified in this groundbreaking report, "People Who Eat Artisanal Sandwiches" are most likely to provide Obama with his margin of victory in November--that is, unless "Necktie Asians Living above Frozen Yogurt Shops" break for McCain at the last minute. In which case, it's anybody's game.

In all seriousness, if there's a funnier evisceration of the MSM's frenzied polling fever out there, I haven't seen it. Somewhere, Mark "Microtrends" Penn is spinning in his metaphorical grave.

II. The new blog by Howard Wolfson, former communications director for Hillary Clinton.
Billed as Wolfson's "musings about music, and, from time to time, politics," the site, Gotham Acme, is blessedly biased in favor of the former. I say "blessedly" because despite his last day job--which involved repeating, ad nauseam, that Hillary "wouldn't quit until every vote was counted"--Wolfson has long been known as something of a music nerd. (Like yours truly.) Every December, in fact, the guy sends a list of his "Ten Best Albums of the Year"--hipstery acts like Sleater Kinney, complete with Spin-style blurbs--to his Beltway buddies. And it's actually pretty good. Same goes for the stuff highlighted so far on his blog, which includes the "delicate chamber pop" of Grizzly Bear, the "pure, powerful and evocative" Welsh folk of Fernhill and the "Scottish accents, fuzzed guitars and Strummeresque intensity" of Glasvegas.

But most of all, we applaud the former flack (and current FOX News contributor) for delivering a (timely, necessary) reminder that there's life outside of politics.

It's almost enough to make up for this:

Almost.
 

A few numbers worth pondering: 

FOX News Poll, July 24, 2008:
Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (67 percent) say they believe most in the media want Obama to win the November election--while a scant 11 percent think the media are pulling for John McCain. Moreover, only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the United States. When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward McCain). Just under 4 Americans in 10 (36 percent) says both campaigns are being covered objectively.

Study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, July 28, 2008:
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive).  That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period. This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries.  From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).

Bias, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

I get a lot of email accusing me of being a "liberal idiot." I also get a lot of email accusing me of being a "conservative butt boy." On Monday, for example, I was instructed to "try to not get that liberal nose of your's [sic] to [sic] close to Obama's ass" because "if McCain wins and Obama stops up short your whole head may go up to your very weak shoulders." On Tuesday another reader declared that "spineless Mr. Romano is clearly a graduate of the Fox News school of journalism."

For the record, I think there's a lot of bias in the mainstream media. It's a huge problem, in fact. But the issue isn't ideology. No reporter I've ever met sits around scheming about how to get his or her favored candidate elected. Do they have private political beliefs? I'm sure. Do these preferences occasionally skew their work? No doubt (mine included). But as a rule, reporters spend too much time with politicians to feel anything but skepticism. The really damaging bias is narrative in nature--bias for tension, bias for conflict, bias for drama. That's handy when there's actual drama--also known as news--to document. But often there isn't. Which is why the Washington Post gushes over Obama's international trip one day and pounds him for presumption the next. Or why positive coverage of Obama has declined from 62 percent in the primaries to 28 percent in the general. Ideology has nothing to do with it. No one is in control, and no one, sadly, can stop it. Despite tons of excellent individual work, this is just the way the mass media works--by constantly, collectively hyping the next plot twist, whether or not it's worth hyping.

The Internet doesn't exactly help. When it comes to campaign coverage (as I've written before) choosing scandal over substance is nothing new. But this is the first presidential election to move at the speed of the Web. Print set the pace in days; cable news, hours. Now, after years of dismissing independent political bloggers as peanut galleryists in pajamas, every major newspaper, magazine and news channel is requiring reporters to provide a play-by-play on the day’s developments at its in-house blog. Meaning we’re now stuck with a 1,440-minute news cycle. In theory, that’s dandy (no hiding); in practice, it totally skews the signal-to-noise ratio. While the demand (if not the audience) for campaign news has exploded, the supply has stayed the same (did more really “happen” in 2007 than 2003, or 1983, or 1923?). To fill the growing void, we make ever-bigger mountains out of ever-smaller molehills, 1,440 minutes a day. And the gap grows between the insight you expect and the “news” you get.

The great thing about the Internet, however, is that you can easily ignore the noise. Here at Stumper, I strive to analyze the presidential campaign without relying on ideology. I call it equal-opportunity skepticism. My approach isn't "just the facts, ma'am." We have the AP for that. Instead, I try to provide perspective--often with humor or opinion. Meaning that when I make fun of some silly thing that Obama has said, it’s because I think it was a silly thing to say--and not because I "hate" Obama. I do the same for McCain. There's no editor--liberal or conservative--telling me what to write. There's no "NEWSWEEK" demanding that I hew to some (nonexistent) party line. Nowadays, a lot of people gravitate toward media outlets that echo and reinforce their own points of view. I've always found such insularity sort of boring. I hope at least some of you--that is, the ones who aren't too busy calling me a partisan hack--agree.

Anyway, we now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
 

John McCain may be coming off a bad week on the trail, but at least his campaign still has a sense of humor. Here's the credential issued to reporters traveling with McCain today in Reno, Nevada. Yes, that is the cast of Reno 911.

New posters from John McCain and Barack Obama. Which would you rather have on your bedroom wall? (Other than "neither.")

(Via Ambinder) 

Design can be revealing. Both posters seek to portray their subjects as steely, messianic, future-oriented leaders--which is why they're both gazing at some distant, meaningful horizon. But whereas the Obama graphic supports this message visually--the upward sweep of the text conveys optimism while also evoking the internationalist spirit of modern Europe (see: the bold diagonals and sans serif fonts of Bauhaus-style  design)--McCain's seems somewhat conflicted. "Wisdom" equals intelligence but also suggests the past. Marbling connotes solidity but also implies antiquity (both classical and Clinton-era). The warplanes may be returning from combat--or leaving on a mission. And you can't tell if the sun is rising or setting.

Also, it looks like the cover of "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy.

UPDATE: More on Obama and Bauhaus from Meaningful Distractions: "Many Germans will recognize this little tip-of-the-hat to German graphic design history, and those that recognize it will appreciate it. This type of move wouldn’t even occur to the McCain campaign, despite the fact that McCain was born around the time German Bauhaus was all the rage."
 

There are a few ways to counter the Democratic attack that John McCain's presidency would represent a third Bush term. You could, for example, lay out a logical case for why you think "Obama's leap from 'McCain agrees with Bush more now' to 'McCain will govern exactly like Bush' is pretty misleading"--as I did last week. Or you could do what Stephen "Bio-Dome" Baldwin did yesterday on Fox News:

That's right, folks. "The most stupidest thing I've heard in my life." Which once again proves that the only people less qualified than bloggers to weigh in on politics are Hollywood actors.

Especially if they're Baldwins.

... Matt Drudge casts his vote:

 

Once upon a time, the New York Times could gush about the strange new synergy between Clinton and Drudge, a former family foe. Not anymore, apparently. Absurd as it is, the fedora'ed-one's eponymous site exerts an enormous influence over MSM editors and producers--meaning that "The Nominee" might very well be tomorrow's storyline.

With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fighting each other to a draw over the last few weeks in the riveting battle for blue-collar ordinariness--Clinton: Crown Royal, Mauser rifles, red pick up trucks, NASCAR; Obama: Budweiser, apple pie, P-I-G, hay bales--Stumper hereby proposes a new way for the good people of Indiana and North Carolina to decide which candidate they prefer:

Who delivers a funnier Top Ten list?

Last night, the former First Lady appeared on the David Letterman Show via satellite to rattle off her "Top Ten Reasons Hillary Clinton Loves America." Watch it and weep:

Incidentally, Clinton's appearance came a little more than three months after her rival gave Letterman his "Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Promises." Get it while it's hot:

Who's funnier? We'll let the Tar Heels and Hoosiers decide. But it's at least as relevant as who can down a boilermaker with the most gusto.

By the way, our pick for funniest Top Ten list: Mitt Romney. Here he is last week at D.C.'s Radio Correspondents Dinner with the "Top Ten Reasons I Decided to Get Out of the Race":

Mitt Romney? Funny? We never thought we'd say those words in the same sentence. But with Obama and Clinton as the competition, "I took a bad fall... and broke my hair" might actually take the cake. 

"It makes me bitter," he said.

Pausing for a moment from his comedy routine, Reid added that he believes the Democratic nomination "is all going to be over very soon."

Nevermind. He was probably still joking.  

RELATED: Speaking of deadpan, here's Reid in an interview last month with the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Q: Can the race be resolved before the convention? 

Reid: [Serene and mysterious smile.] Easy. 

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the Bob Newhart of Democratic politics.

OBAMA: Forget those false (and politically malicious) "Obama is a Muslim" rumors. Now the Illinois senator's unusual name has been linked to another "exotic" entity: the small town of Obama, Japan, known the world over for its delightful "lacquered chopsticks."

No word yet on whether the connection has destroyed Obama's chances with the crucial "bigoted South Pacific combat veterans" demographic. Then again, something tells us they were going to vote for John McCain anyway.

CLINTON: Back in February, Stumper mercilessly mocked the creator of "Hillary4U&Me," a painful, over-choreographed pro-Clinton "music video." "The song itself... sounds sort of like a commercial jingle for a used futon store circa 1979," we wrote. "Only less catchy." Which is why we sharpened our knives when "Hillary in the House" appeared in our browser's window:

Sadly, the video, which was made by Texas volunteers, does not aspire to the same level of Three's Company-era professional polish as "Hillary4U&Me"--and so, despite ourselves, we find it kind of adorable. The awkwardly improvised lyrics, the sporadic clapping, the fist-pumping dance moves--it's clear that while its predecessor wasa humiliatingly misguided waste of too many people's time and energy, "Hillary in the House" is a spontaneous expression of childlike enthusiasm.

Cherish it while you can. These people are going to be suicidal zombies by the time the Democratic party finally picks a nominee, like, five months from now.

You sit on the floor outside. And get your picture taken doing it.

  

Why, you ask, was I late? Three words: Maurice's Gourmet Barbecue. Yes, again. How can something so wrong feel so right?

Photo from yesterday's John Edwards event in Columbia by Robert Willett of the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer. For the rest of his gallery, click here.

By Holly Bailey 

Maybe John McCain is onto something with these superstitions of his. Just as he did in New Hampshire, McCain toted his lucky penny, his lucky nickel, his lucky compass and other good luck charms around South Carolina yesterday. His wife, Cindy, wore her lucky color, purple.

And his staff is now just as superstitious. Mark McKinnon, McCain’s media advisor, showed up at the senator’s victory rally at the Citadel in Charleston wearing a black felt hat that he wore two weeks ago when McCain won New Hampshire. “I can’t take it off now,” McKinnon told Newsweek. Ditto for Mark Salter, McCain’s longtime aide, who has been honoring his own ritual—willing or not. “I’ve been wearing the same clothes for the last 12 days!” Salter joked.

It's unclear if McCain will shed his once-honored tradition of seeing a movie on Election Day. He was aiming yesterday for a 4:00 p.m. showing of "There Will Be Blood," the new Paul Thomas Anderson flick, but he and aides ran out of time. The same thing happened in New Hampshire, when scheduling kept him out of the theater, too.

Could it be a sign?

Stewart? Colbert? Who needs 'em. Now we've got the "new and improved" Hillary Clinton instead.

According to the AP's Beth Fouhy, Clinton "welcomed her traveling press corps aboard her campaign plane Wednesday with a humorous riff on the standard flight attendant speech familiar to commercial air travelers."

"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome aboard the maiden flight of Hill Force One," Clinton said over the plane's intercom as it taxied down the runway en route to Reno, Nev. "My name is Hillary and I am so pleased to have most of you on board. FAA regulations prohibit the use of any cell phones, Blackberries or wireless devices that may be used to transmit a negative story about me.

"In a few minutes, I am going to switch off the 'Fasten Your Seat Belt' sign. However, I've learned lately that things can get awfully bumpy when you least expect it--so you might want to keep those seat belts fastened.

"And in the event of an unexpected drop in poll numbers, this plane will be diverted to New Hampshire.

"If you look out from the right, you will see an America saddled with tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war without end. If you look out from the left, you will see an America with a strong middle class at home and a strong reputation in the world

"Once again, thank you for joining us on Hill Force One. We know you have choices when you fly, and so we are grateful that you chose the plane with the most experienced candidate."

If only we could get her to cross the picket line.
 

And then it was over--sort of. After a week of increasingly heated sniping over race, Barack Obama yesterday afternoon sought the high ground, telling reporters during a hastily called news conference in Reno, Nev. that everyone should just, you know, chillax.

You have seen a tone on the Democrat[ic] side of the campaign that has been unfortunate. I want to stipulate a couple of things. I may disagree with Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. They are good people. They are patriots.... I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate to so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why we are doing this... Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.… That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment.

A smart move politically--and as a human being. Eager to seem equally above-it-all, Clinton quickly released a statement of her own. "We differ on a lot of things," she said. "And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand.  But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes--President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King--Senator Obama and I are on the same side. And in that spirit, let's come together."

Can you feel the love tonight? I know I can. Unfortunately, no one told New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, a prominent Clinton supporter. As Hillary's statement hit inboxes in newsrooms across the country, Rangel just happened to sit for an interview on the NY1 cable channel--where he said Obama was "absolutely stupid" for calling Clinton's original Martin Luther King, Jr., remark "ill-advised."

“How race got into this thing is because Obama said ‘race,’” said Rangel.

A Clinton adviser told the New York Times that Rangel was "speaking for himself."

Those pesky surrogates. Clinton may want to muzzle them in the future--or else some folks might start to suspect that they're speaking for her.

UPDATE: More on loose-lipped surrogates from the Washington Post. As Clinton confidant James Carville put it: "Someone said, 'You can't unring a bell' -- well, the biggest bell in American politics just got rung."