One long-time journalist, who comes from a family of journalists, has had enough, and is willing to write about the almost unbelievable bias in today's media coverage of the U.S. presidential election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Read the whole thing.

Andrew McCarthy cites an instance, and a media outlet, which makes the point rather nicely.

In West Virginia, there are doubts about Obama, and across the nation folks are buying more guns than usual.

At least one political analyst thinks there is evidence for a McCain surge on election day, with undecided voters breaking his way.

Bill Kristol likens these last days of the campaign with the First Battle of the Marne in 1914.

An economist who has been proven right by recent events fears that the worst is yet to come.

Another economist believes the age of prosperity is over.

Could it be even worse for Europe?