With help from the media, this past week proves that down and dirty campaigning can be considered a success. Economic collapse and suicide bombers in Baghdad were no match for the media’s rolling thunder that greeted the slime-time ad that John McCain approved regarding Obama’s canceled visit with wounded troops in Germany. As the New York Times reported Wednesday — five days after the first sighting — the Rovian-styled ad reached “millions of people, largely free, thorough television news media hungry for political news with arresting visual imagery.”

The Times labeled this “a public relations coup” for McCain (who only ran it as a paid commercial less than a dozen times). The newspaper then referred to “the campaign’s success” in garnering such wide coverage of the ad. While stating that the ad was “widely panned as misleading” — although “false” would have been more accurate — the thrust of the article favored the horse race benefits: Winning is everything and slinging mud pales next to the coup of getting widespread coverage. Elsewhere, some airing of the ad was not accompanied by any criticism — and even when it was, nonetheless added to the dissemination of a deceitful ad that charged Obama with turning his back on wounded soldiers because he couldn’t bring the media with him. The question remains: What sticks with the millions who saw it — the ad or any attendant criticism? Tell a lie long enough, anyone?

To its credit, the New York Times ran a blistering editorial, The Low Road Express, along with the article. The editorial attacked McCain for his false ad and for “waving the flag of fear”– all in the one month since McCain put three disciples of dirty trickster Karl Rove in charge of day-to-day management of his campaign.

Also the same day — after five days of McCain and aides continuing this slur, and the candidate stating that Obama would rather win an election than win the war — the Washington Post ran a front page story emphasizing that the wounded troop charge “lacked evidence.”

As to who cares more for veterans, MSNBC’s often-over-the-top Keith Olbermann deserves kudos for matching real facts when he aired the ad. He cited the many times McCain either didn’t vote for or voted against aid to veterans — including bills that would have increased health benefits and the amendment that would specify minimum rest periods for troops. McCain got a D and Obama a B+ from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for their voting records; Obama rated an 80% and McCain a poor 20% from Disabled American Veterans.

All this comes at a time when disenchanted media members charge presumptive Obama with “presumptuous” hubris. It seems that Obama doesn’t jolly the traveling media and excludes them from meetings and appears to be prematurely wearing the presidential mantle, as the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank declared. However, Milbank snidely distorted a crucial quote, even citing Obama talking to the wrong leader. Wrote Milbank: Obama was “even feeling comfortable enough [about winning] to give Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice…’if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up a dilettante…’” Milbank then added that by advising the prime minister, Obama revealed “his relative inexperience.” Only Obama wasn’t advising the Prime Minister or anyone else. He was talking with Tory leader David Cameron, not Brown. And Obama was merely musing about the pitfalls “one” can get into as a leader– using “you” instead of the loftier “one.” He and Cameron were talking about the need to take vacations, get away from punishing schedules, learn to delegate to the “smart people”, and take time to think. Obama’s comment about trying to “micromanage and solve everything” was aimed at himself.

As Milbank’s flawed column shows, it’s clearly a mistake to slight the ego-driven media. Since when has a candidate or politician been aided by, to put it crudely, sucking up to the media? Since forever. Vilified by opposition papers, Thomas Jefferson lured a friendly publisher to set up shop in the nation’s capital with printing-contract patronage. Such blatant news management assured that political journalism was dominated by Jefferson’s party press. Under constant attack from anti-New Deal publishers, FDR flattered and cajoled the foot soldiers, the White House correspondents. LBJ sent personal flattering letters to journalists while senator, and JFK made buddies out of the male reporters who covered his candidacy. Jimmy Carter’s aloofness from congress and the media hurt him.

While scrutiny of Obama remains important, which factors are more vital to address? A politician who remains aloof from the media and appears overly confident? Or a politician who abandons his promise to run a clean campaign and employs smear tactics? And, oops, I haven’t even gotten into McCain’s ridiculous ad charging that Obama is causing the price hike at the gas pump.