Now What? With record high ratings achieved covering the Democratic Primary ‘claw-off’ now over, the challenge presents: how to keep up the apoplectic frenzied coverage now that we’ve started in on the general election.

The Old School feel oozing forth from the McCain Campaign, coupled with polls showing a majority of voters expecting Obama to win, highlight a need for a sensation primer of sorts to help maintain that peek level of viewer/consumer/voter interest.

Though I am sure producers and pundits expect periodic spike gimmee’s as (what Keith Olbermann affectionately calls) “the Lunatic Fringe” lobs gobs of mud at Obama (with McCain’s “helpless” consent) – and the subsequent quick and (so far) skillful purging of said slime by the Obama campaign, a more reliable trump card, or ratings filler, is required.

One solution that seems to have emerged in the MSM is a cherry picking of poll results highlighting close numbers between the candidates while omitting or downplaying those showing any coalescing of support by a demographic subgroup behind a particular candidate. Frank Rich did a great job of breaking this down in a Sunday op-ed (June 15, 2008).

I hear you loud and clear when you say to me: “Yeah, but Naomi, this is nothing new. They do this all the time.” Fair enough. Let’s also exclude from this particular discussion charges of sexism – or not – in the treatment of Senator Clinton. (This runs too close to that whole other sticky wicket, the much hyped charge of the drumbeat of calls for her to “GET OUT!!!” of the race, otherwise known as observations of the statistical difficulties/improbabilities of a successful outcome to her campaign.)

My pointing out of the cherry picking of polls to further a “horse race” meme, while not original, does also point out (also a bit obviously), that if it worked in the primary, you best be believing we shall see it in this or other incarnations in the general.

So, here we come to the real goody but oldie; the one that makes me pop a blood vessel in one eye and a twitch in the other: the Speeches and Personalities vs. Specifics and Issues Problem.

I was watching Brian Lamb of C-SPAN interviewing Michelle Bernard on that channel’s Q & A, on Sunday, June 15th (original air date Wed. June 11). Ms. Bernard is the President of the Independent Women’s Forum, as well as a frequent political analyst for MSNBC. Though I disagree with some of what she had to say, I found myself overall impressed with her answers and intrigued by some of her suggestions. One of those suggestions was that two of these upcoming town hall meetings between Obama and McCain should focus on how each candidate’s stand on the issues will effect women and blacks (her word) respectively. She finished this suggestion with the comment (and I paraphrase here) “… you know, it would be great if the candidates could finally focus on a discussion of the issues, rather than continuing to focus on personality and character attributes.”

I suppose this is where a lot of that teeth grinding my dentist says I do takes place.

Mr. Lamb is happy to bite (and again, I’m paraphrasing): “How is it that all this time has elapsed in the campaign and no one has talked about the issues?”

I count backwards from ten, and succeed at stopping my-self from throwing the remote at the TV.

No matter how many times Clinton and Obama engaged in substantive discussions of the issues and their differences therein (or lack of differences, actually), no matter how many times early, but especially, later in the campaign Obama gave detailed policy speeches outlining his stance on the issues, he was forever accused of delivering nothing but speeches. The cry would go out across the land: “When, oh when will he get specific?”

And now, we’re baaaaaaaaaaaaaack! On behalf of Obama AND McCain I’m pleading the case that BOTH have discussed key issues and in great detail. What’s more, these same MSM ringing this issues over sniping bell have at times reported on these detailed policy/issue speeches and the candidates’ differences on same.

It strike me that the simultaneous reporting of these events, while decrying their apparent dearth, serves to at once fan the flame of the frenetic energy they are trying to maintain, while saying to the viewer/consumer/voter: “see? This is just like it was in the primary. Memba' how fun and entertaining that was? It’s still like that. Keep tuning in.”

It also dovetails nicely on the disproportionate coverage of the ping pong sniping between the campaigns.

Finally, I ask: I am I alone here? Is it just me? Does this bother, annoy and infuriate just me???