As he inspires the world, Obama is losing the press here at home. This means that, in an essential way, he is losing the election.

Bob Cesca has written a very well-researched article on this topic, and I suggest you read it in full. I disagree with a central tenet of Bob’s thesis, though - namely, that it is the press’ fear of a liberal bias that has them so hot for Obama’s blood and hateful of his dignity.

My take is that it’s the NASCAR-commentary phenomena: That if the press reported diligently, without a mind to insult and denigrate Obama to balance him with the pathetic mess that is the McCain campaign, it would not generate as much ratings. Why just polish the Golden Boy when you can tear him to pieces? In short, you draw better crowds with public executions than you do with press conferences.

The evidence of this is tragically abundant, and if anyone out there has serious proof to counter it, I welcome it. I would love a press bias towards Obama. Instead, with attributions, I have the following coverage of his trip:

AP: “In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous…”

TIME Magazine: “capable to become the Commander in Chief of a superpower — without seeming presumptuous…”

The National Journal: “He is well aware voters here at home might see that as presumptuous…”

Washington Post: “Whether by the end of this week he will be seen as presumptuous or overly cocky…”

Chicago Tribune: “That means walking the fine line between looking presidential and appearing arrogant and presumptuous…”

Boston Globe: “plus the growing sense in some quarters that the presumptive Democratic nominee is getting a little presumptuous…”

The LA Times covered his Berlin speech today, with the following front page headline: “Obstacles Linger For Obama - The Democrat is winning friends abroad, but is struggling to gain real ground over McCain at home.” The entirety of the front page column is devoted to Obama’s weaknesses. Not a word of the speech is featured.

If we look on sites that compile the Op-Ed columns and punditry, we see more of the same.

On RealClearPolitics, we have David Brooks sneering that “Obama Plays Innocent Abroad.” Then there is Howard Kurtz at the WashPost, dismissively stating, “Obama Abroad: We Get The Picture,” a piece saying that the trip was manipulative, crass showmanship. Then “The Presumptive - And Presumptuous Nominee” and “Pride Clouds Obama’s Vision” and “A Flat Performance In Berlin.”

There is only one positive piece, called “Our First Community-Activist President?”

One could look at this and see a media struggling to maintain objectivity in a time of inspiration. To that analysis, I would ask, “Why is inspiration a bad thing?” But even that conclusion isn’t accurate, as is evidenced by a discussion on Tuesday’s Morning Joe between pundits from a variety of news sources.

…Mika Brzeznski, Andrea Mitchell and Very Serious Mark Halperin … agreed that after three days of reporting the actual news that Senator Obama’s overseas visit was successful, they should deliberately attempt to “trip him up” — to “hold him accountable.”

Apparently they decided not to wait three days. The blood is already in the water, the feeding frenzy is on. But expect a greater slaughter in the days to come, to continue until the press can exclaim in orgasmic delight, “Obama is an underdog in the polls - now we really have a race!”