Let's look at the photos the NYT uses to illustrate a piece titled "On Bailout, Candidates Were Surely Themselves."

Here's the arty and cool but distorted and disturbing picture of McCain.

And here's the elegant and eminently presidential Mr. Obama.

Journalistic bias? Well, maybe the article -- a Patrick Healy "Political Memo" -- supports it:

It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes....

As Mr. McCain appeared as a man in motion last week, Mr. Obama’s cautious side was on clear display....

Mr. McCain, meanwhile, thrives in the fray....

Mr. Obama does not tend to take fiery or partisan swipes just for the sake of them....

Voters list the economy as a priority, and Mr. Obama’s placid public approach may not mesh with the anger that many of them feel. But Democrats say that in the long run, Mr. Obama’s approach will appear as an appealing alternative to President Bush and his choice as a successor, Mr. McCain.

So the choice of pictures is absolutely appropriate. You may question Healy's analysis, but the pictures perfectly illustrate it.

I happen to like Healy's analysis. I've called Obama phlegmatic. I wonder how he keeps going and how he inspires when he seems so low energy. But there's something subtly amirable in that stolid stability.

Remember when Obama promoted himself as having "the right temperament for the presidency"? He said: "I don't get too high when I'm high, and I don't get too low when I'm low."

Does that seem like a good idea about now?