Media Circus surrounds official battle between Good and Evil

In reading some election news, I was struck with the idea that it is quite possible that winning a presidential election is based on who can outwit the press and end up coming out looking best, regardless of actual political belief and vision.

For example, Hillary was lambasted for her performance at the debate the other night, making her have to scramble for good press. This blog intrudes on a phone conversation from her campaign recognizing their strategy.

I'm just curious as to how this person got access to the phone call, but that's not important to my point. Overall, not only is a vast financial backing necessary for a good campaign, but inevitably trying to get people to say the fewest bad things about you (never mind the ultimate goal of getting people to say GOOD things about you) is paramount.

Barack Obama found his way into the media circus as well, being criticized for criticizing Hillary. Though to this point Obama has been the good guy for the most part, he's damned if he doesn't join in on the Hillary-bashing, because he won't be viewed as cut-throat enough for the presidency; however, if he does criticize her, then — as he is in this article — he goes against his nice-guy image.

My question is, then, does the media perpetuate (or even create) political feuding? Clearly there is tension between candidates, but do they have to play it up because they know the media will breathe down their necks if they don't, and will they lose publicity if they don't play this game? The answer to all of these questions, of course, is yes, but I think they're interesting points to ponder nonetheless.