Confusion

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY, NYT:

A Republican strategist said that, according to party monitoring services, Mr. Obama’s campaign had inquired about advertising rates in 25 states, including traditionally Republican states like Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. That would constitute a very large purchase. President Bush, whose 2004 campaign had the most expensive advertising drive in presidential history, usually ran commercials in a maximum of 17 states.

By Charles Babington, AP:

From now on, the great majority of Americans can be excused if they barely realize a presidential election is under way. They will see virtually no TV ads, visits by candidates or local news coverage.

That's because this campaign, like the last two, will focus on about 15 competitive states. Both parties see the other states as reliably in their camps and not needing attention, or totally out of reach and not worth the effort and expense of trying to win them. In either case, these states will largely be ignored.

So, who's lying to whom, about what, and why? Cui bono? Considering that Obama's campaign is in the habit of bragging about its 50-state strategy, it appears that both of these stories rely upon Republicans as sources. It could be that they're trying to minimize what Obama's going to do. But that doesn't make any sense, after all, people are going to notice a nationwide ad blitz.

Most likely: Republican operatives, and the media scum they inform, have no fucking clue what's coming next.

And we can be reasonably sure that Mr. Charles Babington is an idiot.