Friday, September 26, 2008
All that yelling at the refs seems to have paid off for team McCain. The New York Times is finally writing a story about the plus ça change Obama campaign. The lede is barely recognizable as copy from the Times.
Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”
Yet as Mr. McCain’s misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like “The View” and “Saturday Night Live,” Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots.
The question is whether this turning of the worm is the start of a trend or a one-off concession to bolster the paper's flagging credibility.
BTW, yesterday on one of the cable shows, Paul Begala said Bush is a "high-functioning moron."
This morning on the Fox channel, the newsbabe Megyn said "oval awful" when she she meant to say "oval office." At least I hope she meant to say that.
I wouldn't even say it's a one-off. I'd say it's an accident.
Remember, these people fully believe that they are mainstream and politically moderate. Deliberately 'tossing a bone' to conservatives would be to admit that they are not naturally fair.
I think it is more subtle than that. Each of these progressive-friendly outlets can run occasional stories that criticise people on the left, even harshly. The difference is that they do not pick up each other's accusations and turn into sharks smelling blood in the water, as they do when they find a preferred victim. Bill Clinton hit one point at the end of his term when he was assailed at every turn by the same questions. Hillary had some experience with that this election season. Bush has spent much of his presidency in that mode. Obama has never experienced anything remotely like that. When they have emerged, he has thrown people overboard before things could get going.
He deserves a feeding-frenzy on Ayers, his financial advisors, or the shift in his campaign from "Hope. Change." to Chicago-style "Slam the bastards." He might weather any one of those, but he should be put in a position to show it.
"The question is whether this turning of the worm is the start of a trend or a one-off concession to bolster the paper's flagging credibility."
Perhaps another wistful moment?
Or, were you temporarily enmeshed in a fleeting, but ultimately cynical Hemingway moment -- "Isn't it pretty to think so?"
Please read today's New York Times story by Robert Pear on the over-night negotiations to put together a broader-based financial bail out bill. Turn to the jump, and scroll down to the final sentence of the story, the one reporting the removal of the 20% profits to "community" organizations -- like ACORN.
Here is how Mr. Pear and the NYT reported that change.
"Some Democrats had sought to direct 20 percent of any such profits to help create affordable housing, but Republicans opposed that and demanded that all profits be returned to the Treasury."
The New York Times is all gone now. And it has been for quite a while.