Do you think the Wall Street Journal captioning a photo of Presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley as "an unidentified man" was ultimately bad, good, or a wash toward O'Malley's campaign?

Sounds like the photo accompanied a satirical column. As such, the original usage probably had no effect. If there are a lot of re-postings of this content as if it were unintentional, or some sort of WSJ-sneakily-disrespects-O’Malley story, then it might remind people that O’Malley is not being taken seriously.

But then, he’s getting no attention as a candidate anyway. It won’t have any effect on the primary.

O’Malley isn’t even a speck of sand on the seashore, so to call this as “brutal” is somewhat of an overstatement.

I would observe that this is a testament to the WSJ’s overwhelming focus and love for the republican party, and utter ignorance about democrats.

And the reporter / photographer / editor needs to be disciplined, because they shoudl have known better.

Don’t Worry, The Associated Press Knows Who Martin O’Malley Is

I didn’t actually read that one because I won’t allow Huff access to my PC, but the title was exactly what I wanted.

How could it hurt him? An Iowa poll showed he got zero votes as a candidate for president. He would do better if he changed his name to an “unidentified person”. The question would be: Who do you favor in the democratic primary, Hilary Clinton or an unidentified man? His numbers couldn’t be any lower and I would bet his numbers would go up.

Overall, it is some much needed publicity.